General Vancouver Updates

[osirisboy]

I wonder why they didn't want to develop more office space there then

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I don't know the names of these but here are some pics of some projects along King Edward

2019-04-25_11-30-54 by snub_you, on Flickr

2019-04-25_11-31-10 by snub_you, on Flickr

2019-04-25_11-30-59 by snub_you, on Flickr

2019-04-25_11-31-05 by snub_you, on Flickr

2019-04-25_11-31-15 by snub_you, on Flickr

2019-04-25_11-31-34 by snub_you, on Flickr

2019-04-25_11-31-44 by snub_you, on Flickr

2019-04-25_11-31-50 by snub_you, on Flickr

2019-04-25_11-31-55 by snub_you, on Flickr

2019-04-25_11-32-01 by snub_you, on Flickr

Great update. This type of low-rise structure should be allowed as of right in all of Vancouver. Sooner or later the province will have to step in to clip the city's wings, and when it does the smartest, cheapest and easiest way to do so would simply be for as-of-right development with conditions and fee formulas. You can never all these years back - the money that people have put into housing that instead could have been put into productive enterprises and ventures won't return, and obviously the opportunity cost for Canada has been huge. But it's not too late to correct the course, Vancouver hasn't hit that terminal point like, say, West Vancouver has. And the province holds literally all of the cards. With an NDP government finally in power, you have this one window of opportunity to take decisive action.

[SpongeG]

I think they should replace all those SFH homes along the southside of grandview highway between rupert and renfrew with buildings like these.

[logan5]

Just before the election, the City announced a that they wanted to change RS zoning across the CoV to include duplex. I wonder if the new city council will follow up on this. It wasn't really much of change though. It still mean 4 overall units on one lot like we have now. In the duplex set-up, there are 2 primary (ownership) residences, with the option of having a secondary suite. FSR would still be the same so there isn't much incentive to redevelop.

If it were up to me, I would make 6plexes the new RS zoning. FSR 1.5 would give plenty of living space and incentive to redevelop. 4 units over 3.5 stories at the front of the lot, and 2 units over a 3 car parkade at the laneway (2 stories). Reduce set backs at the front and increase set backs at the lane-way units, to provide good separation from the neighbours across the lane.

This kind of density would not be overbearing as it remains at a good human scale, yet provides the critical amount of people to have subways on most arterials, or at least be within 10 minutes walking distance to a subway station.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by logan5

Just before the election, the City announced a that they wanted to change RS zoning across the CoV to include duplex. I wonder if the new city council will follow up on this. It wasn't really much of change though. It still mean 4 overall units on one lot like we have now. In the duplex set-up, there are 2 primary (ownership) residences, with the option of having a secondary suite. FSR would still be the same so there isn't much incentive to redevelop.

If it were up to me, I would make 6plexes the new RS zoning. FSR 1.5 would give plenty of living space and incentive to redevelop. 4 units over 3.5 stories at the front of the lot, and 2 units over a 3 car parkade at the laneway (2 stories). Reduce set backs at the front and increase set backs at the lane-way units, to provide good separation from the neighbours across the lane.

This kind of density would not be overbearing as it remains at a good human scale, yet provides the critical amount of people to have subways on most arterials, or at least be within 10 minutes walking distance to a subway station.

Yes, the new Council voted to continue to allow duplexes in RS zones on a trial basis. Uptake has been slow, apparently.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Yes, the new Council voted to continue to allow duplexes in RS zones on a trial basis. Uptake has been slow, apparently.

Likely because duplexes are still wildly beyond the means of the general population, based on household income.

I think that a shift to a form-based code for the RS zones to allow six storey building would do wonders for the city. One could build modern walk-up apartment buildings/condo/seniors housing/social housing buildings of up to six storeys with frame construction, stacked townhouses (typically four storeys), large-scale half block townhouse developments familiar to the Oak Street corridor, unfamiliar three- and four-storey zero-lot-line row-housing like what the late Art Cowie built at 33rd and Cambie, clustered attached and detached courtyard housing projects, duplexes galore, and full-sized detached two-, three-, and four-storey detached houses (sub-divided into suites, single and multi-family, or as straight-up mansions with land), etc., etc. Contextual setback requirements will help avoid existing residents finding themselves living beside a giant 6 storey blank wall and will, in time, create far more varied and interesting patterns of urban development than we can perhaps imagine today.

Allow that as of right city-wide and the rate of change on any given block and in any given neighbourhood will be pretty modest while still opening the floodgates to create homes for hundreds of thousands of people in the years and decades ahead. The need for land assemblies will further slow the rate of change and holdouts will actually benefit the diversity of neighbourhood character as it will prevent cookie-cutter platting of new buildings lining up in neat rows or transforming whole blocks en masse. Furthermore, all these new houses types will be within the capabilities of local small and medium-sized developers without the deep pockets and international pre-sale reach of the majors. All the new people will also be transformative to the viability for local retail, provide critical mass to keep schools open and the resources to deliver new community amenities, and critical transit-sustaining populations to justify higher-order transit on several new corridors (King Edward, 41st, Arbutus, SE Marine Drive, Hastings, Fraser? Nanaimo? ???).

[GlassCity]

It's all a process, and allowing for denser development in the lowest density zone as of right will happen eventually. This change to allow duplexes, along with the highly publicized removal of single-family-exclusive zoning in places like Edmonton and Minneapolis, are really much more to do with expanding housing diversity and choice than density.

I'm maybe a little more conservative with regards to this topic so I don't know if I'd support six-storey buildings as of right along residential streets as of now, but row houses and stacked townhouses would all be a welcome addition to expanding housing diversity and density both.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm maybe a little more conservative with regards to this topic so I don't know if I'd support six-storey buildings as of right along residential streets as of now, but row houses and stacked townhouses would all be a welcome addition to expanding housing diversity and density both.

Yeah, six-storey zoning better come with a B-Line attached to it.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, six-storey zoning better come with a B-Line attached to it.

Good point. After I wrote my post, I started to think about urban neighbourhoods with three-storey walkups intermixed with single-family houses, and they look fine. So strong design guidelines and consideration of scale could make it work. But infrastructure, like transportation, would probably get in the way of doing something much denser.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

Great update. This type of low-rise structure should be allowed as of right in all of Vancouver. Sooner or later the province will have to step in to clip the city's wings, and when it does the smartest, cheapest and easiest way to do so would simply be for as-of-right development with conditions and fee formulas. You can never all these years back - the money that people have put into housing that instead could have been put into productive enterprises and ventures won't return, and obviously the opportunity cost for Canada has been huge. But it's not too late to correct the course, Vancouver hasn't hit that terminal point like, say, West Vancouver has. And the province holds literally all of the cards. With an NDP government finally in power, you have this one window of opportunity to take decisive action.

With a few geographical exceptions I'd agree 1000% with this.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

With a few geographical exceptions I'd agree 1000% with this.

As do I. Something akin to the Vancouver Special program of the past. Standard land assembly, standard rules, simple stamping process with no guesswork for developer.

[logan5]

The small (strata) townhouse complex at around 15th and Quebec is a perfect example of what can be done on a typical 120 x 33 Vancouver lot. There are 4 units of between 1200 and 1300 sq feet, with 4 parking spots in the back, which is more than enough. With a total of 5000 sq feet of living space, you can have 5 or even 6 well sized units on 1 typical Vancouver lot.

Lot assembly can be difficult, so a single lot complex like this makes it far easier to spur development, as opposed to low-rise buildings. And the FSR is double that of a typical RS lot, which makes it worth the time of developers.

It's like the City said "here's an example of what we should be doing city wide, but we are just too chicken shit to do it".

[Changing City]

Here are two linked projects in the Downtown Eastside, by Onni. The first has two 12 storey condo buildings and an 8-storey 55 unit non-market building. The scond has 59 condos (all 2 and 3 bed) on Raymur (backing onto the railway) with manufacturing on the main floor. The non-market building on East Hastings provides the required non-market space for both projects. More on each on the Changing City blog.

[logan5]

This is good news for the DTES as not much seems to happen.

The Hastings Street building reminds me of the Main Street project in Chinatown (what's it called again?), which is good because I like the modulating facades. The other side of Clark at that intersection falls under the Grandview/Woodlands plan, and I don't think there are the same social housing requirements, so maybe this will kickstart this intersection.

[trofirhen]

Thanks for posting that; Changing City. In stratospherically expensive Vancouver, where even a modest middle class apartment is often unattainable, we need more, much more of this type of development.
As an example, and perhaps a contrast, non-market housing buildings similar to this are sprinkled throughout Paris, even in wealthier districts, instead of creating a "poor" ghetto, which while not yet happening in Vancouver, risks being the case, IMO.
In Paris, there is non-market housing even in the money-oozing 16th arrondissement, where I met an uber-rich French couple and their daughter, the mother of whom dripped an elegant yet supercilious disdain; ice-cold, with a slightly turned-up, forced smile right out of movies, that depict the image of French snobbiness ..... (but that's another story.)

[GenWhy?]

Recent zoning changes (2017/2018?) really made this possible and Staff working with the ineffective 20% social housing component in the smaller building to the larger one. Same units, and cost effective. The density increase along East Hastings should change a few things coming forward.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by logan5

The other side of Clark at that intersection falls under the Grandview/Woodlands plan, and I don't think there are the same social housing requirements, so maybe this will kickstart this intersection.

Wrong!! Looking over the G/W plan, you are required to provide 20% (residential floor space) non market housing. FSR 4.8, up to 18 stories.

If the non market housing comes in the form on micro suites with rents tied to income, that shouldn't be too much of an impediment to develop. A 280 sq foot apartment at 950 or so is the same ratio as a 560 sq foot apartment at 1900/month. Not far off market rate when you look at it that way.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

Wrong!! Looking over the G/W plan, you are required to provide 20% (residential floor space) non market housing. FSR 4.8, up to 18 stories.

If the non market housing comes in the form on micro suites with rents tied to income, that shouldn't be too much of an impediment to develop. A 280 sq foot apartment at 950 or so is the same ratio as a 560 sq foot apartment at 1900/month. Not far off market rate when you look at it that way.

That's not likely to be what the non-market housing will look like. It'll either be an air-right parcel (as Wall built in Strathcona Village) or a separate structure, as Onni are proposing here. Either way the freehold is handed to the City of Vancouver, who in turn select a non-market operator to lease and manage the units.

The Onni project has 38 studios at 318 sq. ft., 11 2-bed units of 781 sq. ft and 6 3-bed units of 1,070 sq. ft. The City are almost always looking to include 30% non-market family housing in these projects, as it's the supply that is most needed.

[logan5]

While I appreciate the information and updates you provide, and responses as well, I have a hard time understanding some of the language you use.

What is "air-right parcel"? Or did you mean air-tight? Still not sure what you mean by that, as it pertains to what level of subsidy the non market housing will be at.

And how is this considered 3 different structures? There's going to be 2 seperate walls between the social housing building and the market buildings? Thought it was just 3 different facades to give the impression of 3 different buildings.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

While I appreciate the information and updates you provide, and responses as well, I have a hard time understanding some of the language you use.

What is "air-right parcel"? Or did you mean air-tight? Still not sure what you mean by that, as it pertains to what level of subsidy the non market housing will be at.

And how is this considered 3 different structures? There's going to be 2 seperate walls between the social housing building and the market buildings? Thought it was just 3 different facades to give the impression of 3 different buildings.

No, an air-right parcel. Or air space parcel. It's often a separate ownership part of a mixed use building, for example. You'll have a commercial podium owned by the developer, and a strata corporation owning the residential component of the building. Westbank don't own the strata above the office part of the Shaw Tower, (they sold that off) but they do own the office building underneath. The strata is an air right parcel.

Similarly, the non-market part of these mixed tenure buildings is legally owned by the City, as an air-right parcel. And on this project it certainly looks like there will be three separate buildings - a 12 storey condo, an 8-storey non-market building (given to the City by the developer) and another 12-storey condo alongside. The City will then decide how it wants to lease the non-market building, but as there are only running costs and management, no mortgage or construction to pay off, they can deep discount the rents if they choose.