HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #14981  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2022, 10:43 PM
goodgrowth goodgrowth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
By the above graphic you are taking 3 Vancouver lots and combining them into 4 Montreal style triplexes, 12 total units?

You're spending $6M in acquisition costs, bare minimum. I think that alone might kill this deal financially. That is part of the issue in being where Vancouver is today and trying to densify.

I'm not against it, and we have some examples of row homes and low rises, but they aren't anywhere near affordable.
Doesn't this just highlight how far behind Vancouver is...

Land prices have eclipsed a lot of the low hanging fruit/potentially politically feasible zoning changes...

Multiplexes are nice but even in cities like Calgary when you see a new townhome/multiplex that is infill....it's pricey. Can't imagine it would work in Vancouver.

It's a very marginal improvement in terms of density. And I'm not sure marginal density is going to move the needle much on Vancouver prices.
     
     
  #14982  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2022, 10:45 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ verified human
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 14,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Quadplexes are probably marginally denser than townhomes. The real problem is that it's really hard to fix townhouses into existing neighbourhoods. It's much easier to take a normal SFH lot and put up a triplex or quadplex.
Townhouses and quadraplexes (or duplexes) are the most common infill in my area of Vancouver (established C. 1890s). On some residential corner lots 5 townhouses have replaced one SFH.
     
     
  #14983  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2022, 10:51 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
Townhouses and quadraplexes (or duplexes) are the most common infill in my area of Vancouver (established C. 1890s). On some residential corner lots 5 townhouses have replaced one SFH.
How big were those lots? That's crazy.
     
     
  #14984  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2022, 11:00 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ verified human
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 14,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
How big were those lots? That's crazy.
I may have misspoken slightly, perhaps it's an oversized lot or two lots combined, about 125 x 66 ft. but it contains 8 units. Next door are 3 THs on a single lot about 125 x 33 ft..

https://goo.gl/maps/kJJRg3N8d25uUPPF6

Last edited by Architype; Jul 21, 2022 at 11:11 PM.
     
     
  #14985  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2022, 11:10 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodgrowth View Post
Doesn't this just highlight how far behind Vancouver is...

Land prices have eclipsed a lot of the low hanging fruit/potentially politically feasible zoning changes...

Multiplexes are nice but even in cities like Calgary when you see a new townhome/multiplex that is infill....it's pricey. Can't imagine it would work in Vancouver.

It's a very marginal improvement in terms of density. And I'm not sure marginal density is going to move the needle much on Vancouver prices.
Yes, Vancouver is way far behind. Lots of SFH only zoned parts of the city already have the home carved up into multiple suites, and there's laneway homes.

The way out is to allow more density and multi-family homes everywhere. Ease approvals. See how many new homes the private sector is willing to build when they are allowed to.

Then re-assess in a few years to see where we are at.
     
     
  #14986  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2022, 11:10 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
I may have misspoken slightly, perhaps it's an oversized lot or two lots combined, about 135 x 66 ft. but it contains 8 units. Next door are 3 THs on a single lot about 135 x 33 ft..

https://goo.gl/maps/kJJRg3N8d25uUPPF6
Those are large lots for sure. I guess they can pack them in if they make the townhouses 3-4 storeys tall.
     
     
  #14987  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2022, 11:32 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ verified human
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 14,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Those are large lots for sure. I guess they can pack them in if they make the townhouses 3-4 storeys tall.
The standard lot size is 33ft w. x 125ft d. in most downtown areas like the west end. That double lot used to contain a small corner store and a small house. The biggest issue is parking, which must be either underground or in small single spaces or garages. Here is another case of 7 units on a double lot 66ft x 125ft. You can find similar examples all over the city. This could be applied to suburban areas where lot sizes are often larger.

https://goo.gl/maps/N9NhHGAgZ3dRQemq6
     
     
  #14988  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 12:14 AM
casper's Avatar
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 12,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
The standard lot size is 33ft w. x 125ft d. in most downtown areas like the west end. That double lot used to contain a small corner store and a small house. The biggest issue is parking, which must be either underground or in small single spaces or garages. Here is another case of 7 units on a double lot 66ft x 125ft. You can find similar examples all over the city. This could be applied to suburban areas where lot sizes are often larger.

https://goo.gl/maps/N9NhHGAgZ3dRQemq6
This all depends. My parents lot in East Vancouver is 43.9ft x 120ft. On one side is a lot that is 45 x 120 on the other side are two lots that are 33 x 120ft. The 33 ft x 120 ft lot is the most common on the street.

At one point in time there were a number of double 66 ft x 120ft lots in the area but many of them were sub-divided into 33ft lots in the 1980s when a lot of the Vancouver specials were built.
     
     
  #14989  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 1:28 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
Montreal is an interesting place, but its appeal stems from more than its built form. If it all boiled down to "lowrises and rowhousing that are built right up to the sidewalk", then Baltimore would be a better urban experience than Toronto. I can assure you that it's not.

What's wrong with Vancouverism? Building townhouses at the podiums of condo towers keeps the sidewalk to a human scale, and provides an opportunity to animate the surroundings and break up what would otherwise be expansive, monotonous walls. It's true that people can't personalize things too much, but that's the fault of strata rules, not the built form per se. The only other way to animate the street is with retail, and that's neither desirable in all contexts, nor is it really supportable. Even in the densest environments - maybe especially in the densest places - residential sidestreets should be a respite from commercial activity.
The lack of personalization is part of it, but another part is that the townhouse podiums just don't tend to be very interesting since they're often a long expanse of identical-looking street front. To be fair, this can be an issue in cities with old town or row houses too, but in most cases it's lessened in old developments due to gradual changes with the passage of time. Buildings being renovated, demo'd and rebuilt, etc.

To continue the Montreal comparison, look at the buildings on this street. They're all very similar but with slight differences in materials, style and trim. Then by comparison, look at the podium townhouses on this development. You're basically taking one building with one set of materials and one design, and extending it almost the entire length of the block rather than just the footprint of the tower which is already wide compared to a house. If you're going to have a single building with a single style stretching that far it better be something spectacular. Ordinary contemporary building styles will not cut it.

To be fair, we're probably never going to get new developments that immediately look as appealing as the best of the old stuff for a variety of reasons. But Vancouverism could be made more aesthetically appealing by separating the townhouses from the towers and making them into separate developments. Perhaps groups of two or three townhouses could be identical, but beyond that they should be separate, each group with it's own design even if they're similar.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
     
     
  #14990  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 1:39 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 35,802
I think there are just better and worse designed buildings (budget being a factor but not the only one). Vancouver has some good developments with towers and townhouses and some ugly ones. A lot of inner Paris doesn't necessarily have all that much architectural variety but people like it and I don't think they notice all that much if the ornamentation on one apartment block is a little different from the next.

Vancouver has moved on somewhat from that podium and townhouse style that was common around Yaletown from around the late 90's to 2010 or so. The new buildings around say Main Street look different, and by and large better, at least according to my tastes.
     
     
  #14991  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 2:04 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,915
To be clear, my criticisms on Vancouverism wasn't based on aesthetics. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have discerning enough taste to cast wide judgements.

My criticism is based on output. Vancouver is dense. No doubt. But that form of development (heavily reliant on condo towers) achieves these densities by really cutting back on space provided. This only exacerbates the divide. Gentle density with quadplexes and townhouses provide more space and human scale development. They also provide this in a form that is financially sustainable for more people, without substantial escalating stratas.
     
     
  #14992  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 4:36 AM
casper's Avatar
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 12,752
This is a good example of how a province is writing nasty letters to municipal governments setting the expectation for higher density.

“The Province is concerned that any proposal to amend the OCP and reduce the allowable densities in the area around Moody Centre Station will be inconsistent with regional goals and best practices for land use around rapid transit,” reads the letter."

"The three ministers also suggested that moving forward, the provincial government’s new rapid transit investments are conditional on having the municipal governments onside with introducing real new density to optimize the transit-oriented development potential."



https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain...7Ymz9JuhJqHFWMLA639asywBL0q7BSEn_Ku1VzKY
     
     
  #14993  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 4:46 AM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
To be clear, my criticisms on Vancouverism wasn't based on aesthetics. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have discerning enough taste to cast wide judgements.

My criticism is based on output. Vancouver is dense. No doubt. But that form of development (heavily reliant on condo towers) achieves these densities by really cutting back on space provided. This only exacerbates the divide. Gentle density with quadplexes and townhouses provide more space and human scale development. They also provide this in a form that is financially sustainable for more people, without substantial escalating stratas.
Why are you surprised? When BC sold off the Expo lands to a Hong Kong developer they imported Hong Kong’s method of housing.
     
     
  #14994  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 5:04 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ verified human
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 14,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
To be clear, my criticisms on Vancouverism wasn't based on aesthetics. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have discerning enough taste to cast wide judgements.

My criticism is based on output. Vancouver is dense. No doubt. But that form of development (heavily reliant on condo towers) achieves these densities by really cutting back on space provided. This only exacerbates the divide. Gentle density with quadplexes and townhouses provide more space and human scale development. They also provide this in a form that is financially sustainable for more people, without substantial escalating stratas.
There is a further problem with the urban townhome model, that is security. Townhomes are the most insecure form of dense urban housing, prone to break-ins and invasions, without the physical protection of an in-house security barrier, elevation from ground, and an elevator, etc.; it's a significant trade-off, but for people in search of routine physical exercise, the stairs of a four storey townhome are a boon.
     
     
  #14995  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 6:58 AM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,875
The problem with Vancouverism is that it's rooted in '90s anti-urbanism--density is a necessary evil that they have to sugar coat with the barest minimum of urbanity so that residents can choke it down. The result is a built form that's not appropriate for downtown or residential areas. Why are there low-rise townhouses in a super-dense downtown? Why are there huge towers in a low-rise residential district? It's no surprise that Vancouverism has found its true home in pseudo downtowns at suburban transit stations.

I agree with someone123 that Vancouver's newer developments are better because they've moved on from townhouse podiums.


Speaking of human-scaled density, I really like this visualization of European density.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/galle...opulated-square-kilometres-europe-mapped

These densities are extremely high by Canadian standards. You'll find very few towers here, just 6-ish storey buildings, built out to lot lines. The main difference in density is how much they pack them in. That honeycomb texture you see in these blocks is a result of building behind buildings, and building behind that. In less dense areas you'll find large gardens behind the 6-floor streetwall.

These buildings are also, for the most part, on pretty small lots. These aren't block-spanning slabs. Each lot is about the size of two Vancouver SFH lots. With a front house, two side houses, and a back house, you get 50-60 units oriented around a courtyard.

I have my doubts that it's even legal to build like this in Canada, but if anywhere could figure it out it would be BC.
__________________
no
     
     
  #14996  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 7:11 AM
casper's Avatar
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 12,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
The problem with Vancouverism is that it's rooted in '90s anti-urbanism--density is a necessary evil that they have to sugar coat with the barest minimum of urbanity so that residents can choke it down. The result is a built form that's not appropriate for downtown or residential areas. Why are there low-rise townhouses in a super-dense downtown? Why are there huge towers in a low-rise residential district? It's no surprise that Vancouverism has found its true home in pseudo downtowns at suburban transit stations.

I agree with someone123 that Vancouver's newer developments are better because they've moved on from townhouse podiums.


Speaking of human-scaled density, I really like this visualization of European density.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/galle...opulated-square-kilometres-europe-mapped

These densities are extremely high by Canadian standards. You'll find very few towers here, just 6-ish storey buildings, built out to lot lines. The main difference in density is how much they pack them in. That honeycomb texture you see in these blocks is a result of building behind buildings, and building behind that. In less dense areas you'll find large gardens behind the 6-floor streetwall.

These buildings are also, for the most part, on pretty small lots. These aren't block-spanning slabs. Each lot is about the size of two Vancouver SFH lots. With a front house, two side houses, and a back house, you get 50-60 units oriented around a courtyard.

I have my doubts that it's even legal to build like this in Canada, but if anywhere could figure it out it would be BC.
Varies from building to building, however those townhomes are in some cases wrapped around a parkade structure.

Many arterials in Vancouver have moved to 5-6 story zoning with building in some area requiring commercial on the ground floor.
     
     
  #14997  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 1:08 PM
jonny24 jonny24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Caledonia, often in Hamilton and Norfolk
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype View Post
I may have misspoken slightly, perhaps it's an oversized lot or two lots combined, about 125 x 66 ft. but it contains 8 units. Next door are 3 THs on a single lot about 125 x 33 ft..

https://goo.gl/maps/kJJRg3N8d25uUPPF6
Yeesh... absolutely no yard. Is it even a "house" at that point, or just a "house shaped apartment"?
     
     
  #14998  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 1:23 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny24 View Post
Yeesh... absolutely no yard. Is it even a "house" at that point, or just a "house shaped apartment"?
Some of us don't want to take on $100-200k in additional mortgage for grass.
     
     
  #14999  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 3:26 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Touching grass everyday.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 51,212
Quote:
To continue the Montreal comparison, look at the buildings on this street. They're all very similar but with slight differences in materials, style and trim. Then by comparison, look at the podium townhouses on this development. You're basically taking one building with one set of materials and one design, and extending it almost the entire length of the block rather than just the footprint of the tower which is already wide compared to a house. If you're going to have a single building with a single style stretching that far it better be something spectacular. Ordinary contemporary building styles will not cut it.
excellent post with great illustrative examples
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
     
     
  #15000  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2022, 3:28 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Touching grass everyday.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 51,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
The problem with Vancouverism is that it's rooted in '90s anti-urbanism--density is a necessary evil that they have to sugar coat with the barest minimum of urbanity so that residents can choke it down. The result is a built form that's not appropriate for downtown or residential areas. Why are there low-rise townhouses in a super-dense downtown? Why are there huge towers in a low-rise residential district? It's no surprise that Vancouverism has found its true home in pseudo downtowns at suburban transit stations.

I agree with someone123 that Vancouver's newer developments are better because they've moved on from townhouse podiums.


Speaking of human-scaled density, I really like this visualization of European density.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/galle...opulated-square-kilometres-europe-mapped

These densities are extremely high by Canadian standards. You'll find very few towers here, just 6-ish storey buildings, built out to lot lines. The main difference in density is how much they pack them in. That honeycomb texture you see in these blocks is a result of building behind buildings, and building behind that. In less dense areas you'll find large gardens behind the 6-floor streetwall.

These buildings are also, for the most part, on pretty small lots. These aren't block-spanning slabs. Each lot is about the size of two Vancouver SFH lots. With a front house, two side houses, and a back house, you get 50-60 units oriented around a courtyard.

I have my doubts that it's even legal to build like this in Canada, but if anywhere could figure it out it would be BC.
Eixample (in Barcelona) is hands-down the absolute best form of high density city living that I have seen in my travels near and far.

__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.