Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by logan5

Re 3 story walk-ups..

If the city is trying to preserve industrial land along the Broadway corridor, then they certainly should be trying to preserve the 3 story walk-ups which provide affordable rental housing.

They provide affordable rental housing because they're old and not as nice as newer housing. So in other words you're asking to keep the quality of housing stock down as an affordable housing policy. I think we can do better than that...

Agreed that the industrial lands should absolutely be redeveloped. The huge car dealerships just steps from transit are such a waste.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by quobobo

They provide affordable rental housing because they're old and not as nice as newer housing. So in other words you're asking to keep the quality of housing stock down as an affordable housing policy. I think we can do better than that...

Retaining the 3 story walk-ups is the only affordable housing policy we have, as far as I can tell. I have yet to see a policy that creates new homes that are affordable. If there was a planning policy that stipulated a certain percentage of rent controlled units (like at least 30%) then I would be all for redevelopment of older buildings.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Genauso

I have other complaints about city council, but making a Broadway subway the number one priority will win re-election. It's been a bottleneck for a while and everybody wins with a sure thing

I find that silly. I don't disagree with you it probably will ultimately but I just find it silly that 1 thing, the Broadway subway, to which Gregor has almost no power over making a reality, would be the defining item to win him the election.

And here I would have thought actual items that he and his team have control over would be what would win the election. Things like bike lanes, development proposals, crime and police, the downtown east side, gentrification conflicts, parking issues, rising homeless counts, rising housing prices, infrastructure problems... etc etc. should be topics raised in determining if he should run another 4 years of Council or not.

But you're probably right that people will latch onto 1 thing, a thing he has almost no control over, and buy in on that. It's what we do as a species. Make decisions or form opinions on non-reality.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logan5

Retaining the 3 story walk-ups is the only affordable housing policy we have, as far as I can tell. I have yet to see a policy that creates new homes that are affordable. If there was a planning policy that stipulated a certain percentage of rent controlled units (like at least 30%) then I would be all for redevelopment of older buildings.

I actually am of the opinion that it is near impossible to build affordable housing in Vancouver anymore. The land prices are just to drastic. Who would get into that business unless they were fully subsidized by the tax payer?

So you go out and buy yourself a $1.5 million 500 foot by 500 foot lot. You now drop $250,000 to build a few "affordable housing" units on there. Say you have 10 renters in your units. So without taking into account tax or other additional costs, you as the owner have to pay around $9,000 per month towards your financing and maintenance of your properties.

You have 10 tenants. That means in order to break even you have to charge $900 per month to each tenant. Remember that's just breaking even. So realistically you have to charge more like $1100 per month or more to each tenant.

Is that what we are calling affordable housing? Because if it is, there are plenty of units around that cost $1100 a month all over metro-Vancouver. If we're talking less than that though so like $450 a month or in that range, GOOD LUCK.

No business case. So that means the tax payer needs to subsidize everything.

I really think Vancouver could move forward and start focusing on real issues if it responded to cries for affordable housing with the following statement:

"If you want affordable housing... move to the suburbs."

So with that said I think they should just fully develop Broadway as much as they can. Forget affordable housing, just build. People will move there, business will move there, and the city will make money through taxes. Low income people complaining because they can't afford to live on water front property in Kits really should be ignored and disregarded.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I find that silly. I don't disagree with you it probably will ultimately but I just find it silly that 1 thing, the Broadway subway, to which Gregor has almost no power over making a reality, would be the defining item to win him the election.

Hey, if we end up with an election where transit is the number 1 issue and that somehow wakes up the provincial government about the issue then I'll be happy.

Originally Posted by jhausner

So you go out and buy yourself a $1.5 million 500 foot by 500 foot lot. ... You have 10 tenants.

Did you mean 50 x 50 foot lot? Because (a) 500 x 500 would be a helluva lot more than $1.5 million, and (b) it could house a helluva lot more than 10 tenants...

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by logan5

Retaining the 3 story walk-ups is the only affordable housing policy we have, as far as I can tell. I have yet to see a policy that creates new homes that are affordable.

New homes are by definition better (people like new buildings) than the average one, so I don't think we can expect them to be priced like the average one. But in the long run they age just like everything else...

What if people 30-40 years ago had prevented the 3-story walk ups (or the West End's towers) from being built because they were expensive and new? We'd have fewer options today and we'd be worse off for it. Today's condo towers are tomorrow's versions of the 3-story walk up.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I actually am of the opinion that it is near impossible to build affordable housing in Vancouver anymore. The land prices are just to drastic. Who would get into that business unless they were fully subsidized by the tax payer?

So with that said I think they should just fully develop Broadway as much as they can. Forget affordable housing, just build. People will move there, business will move there, and the city will make money through taxes. Low income people complaining because they can't afford to live on water front property in Kits really should be ignored and disregarded.

There was a study released by the city with regards to the social housing aspect of the DTES plan. While the social housing demands for thje Oppenheimer area were deemed unrealistic, the rest of the DTES with a call for at least 20% social housing was deemed do-able, so probly maybe 30% would work as well.

Not sure what your definition of low income is, but retaining housing for blue collar workers, or low to medium income people is less about living on prime real estate and more about having a well functioning city. Social housing doesn't necessarily mean welfare rate, it could also mean below market rate, which would be much easier to carry.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by quobobo

What if people 30-40 years ago had prevented the 3-story walk ups (or the West End's towers) from being built because they were expensive and new? We'd have fewer options today and we'd be worse off for it. Today's condo towers are tomorrow's versions of the 3-story walk up.

I don't disagree with that. I've posted your same point with regards to the west end myself. My main point was that low density areas and industrial land should be developed first. 30 -40 years is a long time to wait for a neighbourhood to come into its own. Each of Vancouver's "coolest", most vibrant neighbourhoods are fueled by these 3 story walk-ups, so i would be very hesitant to destroy them and possibly create a City Place Toronto type neighbourhood, or a Coal Harbour.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by logan5

Retaining the 3 story walk-ups is the only affordable housing policy we have, as far as I can tell. I have yet to see a policy that creates new homes that are affordable. If there was a planning policy that stipulated a certain percentage of rent controlled units (like at least 30%) then I would be all for redevelopment of older buildings.

I think that the issue that the original poster was getting at was that these walk ups are closing in on being 65 years old and reaching the end of their life. They may need to be redeveloped. And as far as I can tell the industrial area in mount pleasant seems to be doing well and have a relatively low vacancy.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by logan5

Retaining the 3 story walk-ups is the only affordable housing policy we have, as far as I can tell. I have yet to see a policy that creates new homes that are affordable. If there was a planning policy that stipulated a certain percentage of rent controlled units (like at least 30%) then I would be all for redevelopment of older buildings.

If im not mistaken all apartments are rent controlled in BC

[logan5]

Originally Posted by bardak

I think that the issue that the original poster was getting at was that these walk ups are closing in on being 65 years old and reaching the end of their life. They may need to be redeveloped. And as far as I can tell the industrial area in mount pleasant seems to be doing well and have a relatively low vacancy.

What does "end of life" mean exactly?

You misunderstood what I meant by rent control. I meant a below market rent.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Hey, if we end up with an election where transit is the number 1 issue and that somehow wakes up the provincial government about the issue then I'll be happy.

Because the Broadway "subway" is clearly not on the Provincial radar. I mean they and Translink haven't spent millions on studies and talked about it almost monthly for the past 4 years now. Gregor putting out an election video will be what puts it over the top though.

Did you mean 50 x 50 foot lot? Because (a) 500 x 500 would be a helluva lot more than $1.5 million, and (b) it could house a helluva lot more than 10 tenants...

I was pulling numbers out of my 🞵🞵🞵 but the point is still valid. Drop it to 50 x 50 and repeat the rest.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logan5

There was a study released by the city with regards to the social housing aspect of the DTES plan. While the social housing demands for thje Oppenheimer area were deemed unrealistic, the rest of the DTES with a call for at least 20% social housing was deemed do-able, so probly maybe 30% would work as well.

There are a lot of studies that aren't worth their weight in money so without reading it myself I'll take your word for it but forgive me is I'm skeptical.

Not sure what your definition of low income is, but retaining housing for blue collar workers, or low to medium income people is less about living on prime real estate and more about having a well functioning city. Social housing doesn't necessarily mean welfare rate, it could also mean below market rate, which would be much easier to carry.

But market rate is just that... market rate. Why would 1 landlord decide to price housing under market rate? Just because they want to be nice? If that were the case then this wouldn't be an ongoing record of "we need more affordable housing" that we've all heard since we were in Elementary school.

In Vancouver the median income (medium) is $66,000 per year roughly. So I'd classify low as being half that and under. $35,000 or less. Take tax, CPP, EI and stuff off that and you're probably around take home $27,000 per year. Good economic sense is not to spend more than 50% of your earnings on housing so if you take that high water number that's $13,500 per year or $1,125 per month.

If that is low income then again, you can get that easy out in the suburbs. Rent rates in many parts of Burnaby around Lougheed are under $550 a month. Surrey rent rates depending on where you are can be $450 to $700 easy. Even in my brand new 1 bedroom condo unit smack dab next to King George Skytrain, the maximum I can expect for rent is $1,100.

So if by affordable housing you are talking $1100 a month or in that range then ok I think sure it makes sense for Vancouver to maybe consider more efforts in that direction. If you are classifying low income as meaning housing should be say $500 a month in Vancouver though, then I think you're out to lunch simply due to land prices.

Nobody can afford to build anything anywhere in Vancouver and rent it out at $500 a person. Heck there are few places you can rent it out for $1100 a month. 8 years ago my sister and her boyfriend lived in Kits in a basement suite, 1 bedroom, in an old house that was a death trap with 10 others living in it and they paid $1400 a month.

And did I mention it was a death trap! When everyone was evicted before the Olympics so that the owner could "renovate and jack up rents" the city actually condemned the home and said he had to tear it down. It has gone 5 years now completely empty because of that.

Build a SkySubway down Broadway, build a bunch of new buildings, charge huge amounts for rent, and I guarantee places will be packed full. People who want affordable housing should move to where the affordable houses are, in the suburbs where ironically most of the "blue collar" jobs are moving to anyway. There will come a time in the next 10-15 years where if you are a blue collar worker living in Vancouver, you'll have to commute to Burnaby and beyond to work. The truth that people in Vancouver need to finally have sink into their brains is that you can't have everything you want. You can't have a magical picturesque city by the beach where you can rollerblade around the Sea Wall on a warm summer day, walk 2 blocks to a few SkyTrain rapid transit lines, go shopping at a local shop then hop a bus 10 minutes to the flag-ship Apple Store, and meander 15 minutes from your door to catch a Broadway Play all the while paying $500 a month for rent.

If it was that easy to do, they'd have done it in Vancouver already.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Because the Broadway "subway" is clearly not on the Provincial radar. I mean they and Translink haven't spent millions on studies and talked about it almost monthly for the past 4 years now. Gregor putting out an election video will be what puts it over the top though.

My point isn't that Gregor himself can do anything single-handedly - but he CAN make it an election issue. And if he does that and if a link can be drawn between it and a strong voter endorsement of said issue then that's a good way to give it more weight than he could do on his own.

That's what good politicians do - they get the electorate on their side and earn a mandate to push through their agenda. I don't know if that's actually his plan and, if so, whether it has any chance to come to fruition. But I'd like to think it's possible.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

For my it would indeed seem weird having 2 termini like that. I've been thinking about this too, which is only why I mention it.
Of course if we really wanted to get sophisticated about all this, we might continue on past VCC-Clark to connect west AND due west from Commercial to make sort of along flat oval "loop"( no, not exactly a loop, then bifurcation> rejoinment (I'm forgetting my English, sorry). Every other train going straight west/east, every other train going via VCC-Clark then reconnecting to the mainline.
Something like that might happen in Japan or such, but not here, I think.

En bref, what I see all that "translate" into, is what one could call a "European" density. Getting away from all that Paris and Stockholm beauty 🞵🞵🞵🞵, I think what you may be talking about is middle to middle-high densities. Not only in Europe, but anywhere cities have such densities; if you crunch the numbers it shows.
And yes, the changes you talk about will come about. In densifying, I think the really KEY element, at least in aesthetic-sensitive Vancouver, it's how it looks, first, and how it feels, resultingly. Vancouver has the talent, if it hires the right architects, to do this well, I am sure.

My fantasy for the far future would be to do this after we extend the Evergreen Line from VCC-Clark to UBC:

Build new stations at Clark and Fraser and reroute the UBC portion to continue from Commercial-Broadway, not VCC-Clark. Then you could build a completely separate line going from Commercial-Broadway, to VCC-Clark and continuing along 2nd, 6th and 4th Avenues west to some point, maybe even as far as UBC if there is demand for it.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

My fantasy for the far future would be to do this after we extend the Evergreen Line from VCC-Clark to UBC:

Build new stations at Clark and Fraser and reroute the UBC portion to continue from Commercial-Broadway, not VCC-Clark. Then you could build a completely separate line going from Commercial-Broadway, to VCC-Clark and continuing along 2nd, 6th and 4th Avenues west to some point, maybe even as far as UBC if there is demand for it.

Sort of a split-off running north and parallel to the Broadway-UBC Line.
I'm cool with that, but could also imagine the continuation of the VCC Clark line west into Kits, then under the bay, and into the West End, where it might loop up Denman (or such), go along Robson to join up downtown, hook in at Waterfront to tie into a Hastings Line
(often perceived as a logical extension of the Expo Line eastward.
But heading westward along the South shore of False Creek into Kits and West (and bringing more density, no doubt) seems pretty cool.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

My fantasy for the far future would be to do this after we extend the Evergreen Line from VCC-Clark to UBC:

Build new stations at Clark and Fraser and reroute the UBC portion to continue from Commercial-Broadway, not VCC-Clark. Then you could build a completely separate line going from Commercial-Broadway, to VCC-Clark and continuing along 2nd, 6th and 4th Avenues west to some point, maybe even as far as UBC if there is demand for it.

Can't see why a UBC line (under 10th ave or Broadway -aka 9th Ave) would need to have a parallel line along 4th ave - just 5 blocks away - also heading to UBC.

Wouldn't it be better to have a 2nd UBC line run under 41st Ave and be a 'UBC branch line' for Expo, similar to how the proposed UBC line is an extension of Millennium line. It could run under SW Marine Dr and under the UBC farm and continue north under the Main Mall from the Stadium to the Chan Centre.


This separates UBC traffic on the Expo and Millennium lines, and the traffic is entering/exiting UBC from two different directions.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Can't see why a UBC line (under 10th ave or Broadway -aka 9th Ave) would need to have a parallel line along 4th ave - just 5 blocks away - also heading to UBC.

Wouldn't it be better to have a 2nd UBC line run under 41st Ave and be a 'UBC branch line' for Expo, similar to how the proposed UBC line is an extension of Millennium line. It could run under SW Marine Dr and under the UBC farm and continue north under the Main Mall from the Stadium to the Chan Centre.


This separates UBC traffic on the Expo and Millennium lines, and the traffic is entering/exiting UBC from two different directions.

I agree that 41st Avenue would be a better 2nd line to UBC. When I was saying "far future" I really meant far, as a third line in like 100 years or something crazy like that, when even more capacity is needed going east-west through the city.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Can't see why a UBC line (under 10th ave or Broadway -aka 9th Ave) would need to have a parallel line along 4th ave - just 5 blocks away - also heading to UBC.

Wouldn't it be better to have a 2nd UBC line run under 41st Ave and be a 'UBC branch line' for Expo, similar to how the proposed UBC line is an extension of Millennium line. It could run under SW Marine Dr and under the UBC farm and continue north under the Main Mall from the Stadium to the Chan Centre.


This separates UBC traffic on the Expo and Millennium lines, and the traffic is entering/exiting UBC from two different directions.

Love the idea, but isn't a certain density needed to justify traffic on a metro line, anywhere.
It seems there might be problems finding enough density through the west side (except for junction & town centre at Arbutus) and the largely low density Point Grey area would not be enough to support denity at much of the line points, and there'd be a public howl if for example, South Dunbar was densified.
The West Side may one "mutate" into a region with nodes of high density in an otherwide low density region. If it does, the 41st ave line may be sustainable.
I sure hope so. It'd be great to have.

[casper]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Love the idea, but isn't a certain density needed to justify traffic on a metro line, anywhere.
It seems there might be problems finding enough density through the west side (except for junction & town centre at Arbutus) and the largely low density Point Grey area would not be enough to support denity at much of the line points, and there'd be a public howl if for example, South Dunbar was densified.
The West Side may one "mutate" into a region with nodes of high density in an otherwide low density region. If it does, the 41st ave line may be sustainable.
I sure hope so. It'd be great to have.

There are solutions to affordable housing. There is a fair amount of building in city owned by social housing socieities. Some are high rise some are more townhouse style with green space. Ideal location for redevelopment. The housing societies already have a good sized inventory of land. Relax the high restrictions and encourage them to redevelop with larger taller buildings.

If there are still pockets of land adjacent to skytrain that was purchased by the government, hand that land over to housing societies to redevelop. Some of those could be mixed use where part of the building is owned by a society and the other part is owned by a developer.

The same could be done for land that needs to be purchased for skytrain construction and becomes surplus after the construction of the line.