Vancouver Civic Election 2018

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cleowin

4000 sq ft Lots, the houses they build on those are generally 2000-2100 sq ft at the most, not including basement.

Which still yields 3-5 bedrooms and is still unnecessarily space-intensive. I know for a fact that 1-2k is enough for a family of three to four people. We should be pushing for a whole lot more of those.

Originally Posted by cleowin

Also, you're describing what majority of pro-development people tend to argue, that the only concern should be building more and more housing, with little regard to the community neighbourhood needs and preferences. I dont know about you, but many people who have lived in the Fraser Valley didn't expect this type of development to occur, and while development is needed, I dont think replacing all these lots with High Density should be the only solution, but that's just my two cents. These 468-900 sq ft Condo's that developers are praising as 'Family friendly' and 'affordable' are nothing but that. Let's take a look at Alexander Square, Willoughby for example, a 468 sq ft 1 Bed, 1 Bath condo is selling for $313,000. Couples and bachelors are about the only people who would comfortably live in that space, and you're looking at still $1000-1500/month for a mortgage payment, which is insane. Then if you want an actual family orientated condo unit, you're looking at nearly $665,000 for a 3 bedroom unit. I could go onto REW.ca and find older townhomes or even newer ones with 3-4 bedrooms for less than that. I'm sorry, but Condo's should be no more than $399,999 for a 3 bedroom, and they should still be 'affordable' options for young people and couples, but no way is a family that needs space to grow is going to opt for a Condo over a house, and with a diminishing supply of houses, in favour of high or mid-density homes, I don't see how that's fair to the people who live here. Also, look at townhome complexes, usually filled with tons of families in crowded road spaces, causing problems for residents, strata councils, strata fees, etc, all headaches that don't make townhome or condo living pleasant. You can tell people all you want that we should move to a small town, or a smaller community elsewhere, but everyone has a right to a home, and people who decide to live in the burbs should be able to afford a simple house. All development does is create a hotter market in the long-term. High supply may be the 'affordable solution' to our real estate market, but lack of buyers will drive down prices. If you encourage development, more people are going to buy which in turn is going to drive up prices, regardless of the supply. So no, I think development needs to slow down rapidly, start with houses, once that fills, build townhomes, once those fill, build low-rise condo's, once that fills, high-rise, etc.

Or instead, Langley could build the townhomes and lowrises, limit the number of highrises, and leave the wilderness alone. You keep saying it's either detached or condos, but again, that's a false dichotomy - municipalities can add market rental apartments, we can add duplexes and quadplexes, we can add co-ops, we can do a whole lot of things so that it's not just American-type Suburbistan all the way up the Valley.

The average community/neighbourhood's needs and preferences can usually be summarized as "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody." Most of the NIMBYs I've had the (dis)pleasure of overhearing reminisce about the good ol' days of logging and fishing, and of driving from West Van to Langley in an hour; their needs and preferences would have us tear down everything and return to the Seventies. Those days have been going, going, gone even before Expo '86, and we shouldn't freeze the city in a time warp hoping they'll come back.... and unless we start banning immigrants and/or exiling residents (obviously not an option), they won't.

So we're going to see more and more people buying in regardless. They're predicting another 1.1 million people in the Lower Mainland by 2041 - way too fast for a gradual development policy (or our roads) to handle. Slowing growth down doesn't drop prices, it means buyers and sellers start outbidding each other for a limited number of homes and raise prices. That's basic supply and demand at work.

We can limit demand by cracking down on empty homes,house flipping and dirty money, but it's still in a city's nature to grow bigger and bigger, and so we need a whole lot of supply. And it's smarter to do that like Hong Kong or Paris, not Houston.

[whatnext]

Richmond seems to be doing a way better job of converting one SFH suburuban lot into 2 SH lots. I'm not sure why Vancouver doesn't encourage the same for South Vancouver, other than the hate-on urban planners get for houses.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Richmond seems to be doing a way better job of converting one SFH suburuban lot into 2 SH lots. I'm not sure why Vancouver doesn't encourage the same for South Vancouver, other than the hate-on urban planners get for houses.

I'm interpreting this as dividing extra-long lots into two "standard"-sized ones. Given the amount of lots in South Van matching that description, that yields about a hundred new homes. The rest is garages and laneways - gotta rezone for duplexes in order to make any headway.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'm interpreting this as dividing extra-long lots into two "standard"-sized ones. Given the amount of lots in South Van matching that description, that yields about a hundred new homes. The rest is garages and laneways - gotta rezone for duplexes in order to make any headway.

Yeah Vancouver has laneways which Richmond generally doesn’t have. I’d also say that in general Richmond lots are wider. I’ve seen many Owners subdivide in Richmond lately. Richmond also has a much less expensive development process which allows for much lower costs. In Vancouver it generally doesn’t make financial sense to subdivide due to the extra costs.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Yeah Vancouver has laneways which Richmond generally doesn’t have. I’d also say that in general Richmond lots are wider. I’ve seen many Owners subdivide in Richmond lately. Richmond also has a much less expensive development process which allows for much lower costs. In Vancouver it generally doesn’t make financial sense to subdivide due to the extra costs.

That, plus Richmond having less back alleys; those big properties often run from one street to the next, which means a house and a house-sized yard.

[Sheba]

Vancouver's 10 most wanted: Councillors putting forward big motions at 1st full meeting

Vancouver's new city government isn't wasting any time getting going.

Mayor Kennedy Stewart and council have brought forward 10 different motions for Tuesday's council meeting — the first full meeting since the new mayor and council were sworn into office last week — on a range of issues that each of them talked about during the election campaign.

...

• Expediting a citywide plan
• Establishing a renter's office for the city
• Reviewing last month's election
• 100 per cent social housing for 58 West Hastings
• Creating a budget committee
• Speeding up permits and reducing development fees
• An emergency task force on the opioid crisis
• Reversing the recent rezoning to allow duplexes across the city
• Making public line-item expenses in the operating budget
• Regulating and registering all tenant buyouts

Council begins at 9:30 a.m. PT, but many of the motions will likely be debated at the next day's policy and strategic priorities meeting.

[djh]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Vancouver's 10 most wanted: Councillors putting forward big motions at 1st full meeting
...
Reversing the recent rezoning to allow duplexes across the city
...

Woah, hold up. Am I mistaken, or wasn't the new mayor *in favour* of city-wide duplexes, according to his pre-election manifesto? Or am I simplifying his stance?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by djh

Woah, hold up. Am I mistaken, or wasn't the new mayor *in favour* of city-wide duplexes, according to his pre-election manifesto? Or am I simplifying his stance?

Yes, but the NPA and Greens are bringing that motion up.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by djh

Woah, hold up. Am I mistaken, or wasn't the new mayor *in favour* of city-wide duplexes, according to his pre-election manifesto? Or am I simplifying his stance?

He's got one vote of eleven, and Christine Boyle of OneCity.... against five NPA votes, three Green and one COPE.

[misher]

Currently watching online. Opioids now and will probably go on for a while before we get to the main skyscraper related items to vote so maybe tune in after 12.

Meeting here:http://civic.neulion.com/cityofvancouver/

Agenda here:
https://council.vancouver.ca/20181113/regu20181113ag.htm

[djh]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

He's got one vote of eleven, and Christine Boyle of OneCity.... against five NPA votes, three Green and one COPE.

So the first philosophical face-off of the new council begins. So much for a new era of cooperation that all of the new politicians crowed about immediately after winning their seats.

[misher]

Originally Posted by djh

So the first philosophical face-off of the new council begins. So much for a new era of cooperation that all of the new politicians crowed about immediately after winning their seats.

Cooperation=8 vs 1 vs 1, which is considered cooperation for politics. Jean Swanson spent the day insisting they hear from everyone that attended (basically tenants she asked to attend) but this would have taken days and the Council spent half the day rejecting this as she continuously brought it up. It was kind of ridiculous because it wasted so much time. I think the Council knows that tenants paying way below market rent don't want to get evicted and don't need to hear 100 of them speak. If she had invited 5 or less they may have approved it but its ridiculous to expect them to spend days hearing a 100+ repeat the same thing. She literally tanked her case and got herself the dislike of the others by being obnoxiously persistent.

I call this old person syndrome when old people have all the time in the world and expect others to too.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Cooperation=8 vs 1 vs 1, which is considered cooperation for politics. Jean Swanson spent the day insisting they hear from everyone that attended (basically tenants she asked to attend) but this would have taken days and the Council spent half the day rejecting this as she continuously brought it up. It was kind of ridiculous because it wasted so much time. I think the Council knows that tenants paying way below market rent don't want to get evicted and don't need to hear 100 of them speak. If she had invited 5 or less they may have approved it but its ridiculous to expect them to spend days hearing a 100+ repeat the same thing. She literally tanked her case and got herself the dislike of the others by being obnoxiously persistent.

I call this old person syndrome when old people have all the time in the world and expect others to too.

Ironically old people don't have all of the time in the world.

As for her list of people, I'm glad they didn't waste everyone's time, however, getting people to come to council and speak is how decisions get made.

Often I read whining about some unpopular decision here on this forum. When you look at the minutes, 5 people showed up and expressed approval for the motion. Sometimes that has a big impact on council.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Well yeah, ideally City Council would have maybe 3-5 people speaking for each side, but over a hundred? I almost don't want to know how many people she'll bring out when she proposes free transit...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

Cooperation=8 vs 1 vs 1, which is considered cooperation for politics. Jean Swanson spent the day insisting they hear from everyone that attended (basically tenants she asked to attend) but this would have taken days and the Council spent half the day rejecting this as she continuously brought it up. It was kind of ridiculous because it wasted so much time. I think the Council knows that tenants paying way below market rent don't want to get evicted and don't need to hear 100 of them speak. If she had invited 5 or less they may have approved it but its ridiculous to expect them to spend days hearing a 100+ repeat the same thing. She literally tanked her case and got herself the dislike of the others by being obnoxiously persistent.

I call this old person syndrome when old people have all the time in the world and expect others to too.

Given how little concern Vision Vancouver showed for renters, as well as the BC Liberals, they're long overdue for some attention. I'm sure the current council is well aware of why both Gregor and Christy's parties were kicked to the curb and will govern accordingly.

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Given how little concern Vision Vancouver showed for renters, as well as the BC Liberals, they're long overdue for some attention. I'm sure the current council is well aware of why both Gregor and Christy's parties were kicked to the curb and will govern accordingly.

She wanted to get an auditorium to hear and seat them all and the council shut her down because of the huge costs this had caused in the past+time it would take. She has no idea of the practicality of governance and I thank god she’s not in power.

[Sheba]

Vancouver council approves launching city-wide plan

The City of Vancouver looks set to embark on its first city-wide plan in nearly a century, which could result in the mass rezoning of large parts of the municipality, following extensive public consultation.

City council unanimously passed a motion Wednesday to begin "scoping ... an expedited work plan and timeline" ... to "determine what kind of city they want Vancouver to become and how best to tackle key city-wide challenges like housing affordability, densification to accommodate growth and demographic changes."

"This is an opportunity to look quite broadly and quite deeply into the city's future," said Gil Kelley, the city's chief planner, as he took questions from councillors.

"I think this exercise is honestly more than a review of existing bylaws and plans — it's an opportunity for Vancouver to think bigger than generations, perhaps."

...

Staff will report back to council on a timeline for a city-wide plan before the end of March 2019, along with several details for the process, including how it will impact rezoning applications currently underway.

...

While most municipalities in Metro Vancouver have an official community plan, updated every decade or so, Vancouver has opted to conduct plans for individual neighbourhoods, one at a time, to determine rules around zoning and transportation.

But Kennedy Stewart said a city-wide plan could unite people from throughout the municipality, instead of creating intense focus on — and potential division of — individual neighbourhoods.

"This is an opportunity to have people perhaps alienated a bit from what's happening in the city to be drawn into thinking about the future, and it's a great initiative," he said.

"This is big thing we're voting for. What we're voting for is a plan that will set the course for Vancouver in the coming decades."

The motion asks staff to prepare for a "robust and collaborative public engagement process that could include neighbourhood planning bodies" as part of the process, something all councillors agreed was key.

"This should be a Vancouver for everyone, and we'll achieve that, if we achieve the greater goal of listening to people," said Coun. Melissa De Genova.

Council could also re-examine the decision, made by the outgoing Vision Vancouver government a month before the election, to allow duplexes throughout the city.

...

[WarrenC12]

Ugh.

"City Wide Plan" = 12-18 months to put together
"Extensive Public Consultation" = NIMBYs vs. YIMBYs (NIMBYs win with this council)

Expect nothing to change on the west side, more of the same.

Kennedy Stewart said a city-wide plan could unite people from throughout the municipality, instead of creating intense focus on — and potential division of — individual neighbourhoods.

This is a laughable joke to anybody who has been paying attention for the last decade.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ugh.

"City Wide Plan" = 12-18 months to put together
"Extensive Public Consultation" = NIMBYs vs. YIMBYs (NIMBYs win with this council)

Expect nothing to change on the west side, more of the same.



This is a laughable joke to anybody who has been paying attention for the last decade.

That’s fast, Broadway is 2.5 years. Going to be funny if the city wide plan races past Broadway.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ugh.

"City Wide Plan" = 12-18 months to put together
"Extensive Public Consultation" = NIMBYs vs. YIMBYs (NIMBYs win with this council)

Expect nothing to change on the west side, more of the same.

Get out there and make your voice heard.

Work with groups like abundant housing, they will be serious advocates through this process.

Council knows the next election is always around the corner and housing affordability will still be a big issue then so don't consider the NIMBY's as a forgone conclusion.

I know I'll be voicing my support for more transit, density and housing options at every possible point in the process.