Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[someone123]

At this point I think 80% of the practical fixable municipal planning level troubles in Vancouver boil down fairly simply to the municipalities not permitting enough density in the right areas. We could argue about transportation infrastructure and greenfield development too but those are not easy for the municipalities to change.

Here's a story about Port Moody fighting against densification around the SkyTrain line there with pictures of the low-slung buildings and parking lots that the billion-plus dollar line runs through: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain...-tod-redevelopment-density-bc-government

It talks about how the City of Vancouver had to be pulled into an agreement to allow density along the Broadway corridor too. Commercial Drive station is still low density with a Safeway and parking lot next door. That's one of the major transfer points here, one of the best places to live if you rely on transit, and it handles millions of passengers a year.

IMO the province should start talking about whether this town of 30,000 should be merged with Coquitlam. That can be the backdrop for the Port Moody politicians discussing how much they want to obstruct development.

[goodgrowth]

https://financialpost.com/personal-finan...n-construction-of-new-housing?utm_medium

[Truenorth00]

Gotta love the discounts for SFD.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

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.

I randomly dropped the Street View orange guy in that densest square km in Paris and it looks like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.891118,2...PA5D_Iq5IysxVFgJI67cA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Interesting that these two are outliers. There are a bunch of cities at 30k people but Paris and Barcelona are at 50k+. I wouldn't have guessed there was such a gap.

[WarrenC12]

I'm not discounting the density achieved by the European models, but there seems to be a severe lack of green space there. I know when I traveled to a few big cities in Europe the limited green space was very well used, and it's something I appreciate in even the most urban parts of Vancouver.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not discounting the density achieved by the European models, but there seems to be a severe lack of green space there.

Public parks.

Though, I guess you can't have both 1) high density requiring average people accepting not having back yards AND 2) a defund-the-police environment where you don't dare do anything against parks becoming like Vancouver's DTES.

I think most European cultures would not tolerate what I saw when I lived in Vancouver a couple years ago (nice park right in front of my place but basically unusable).

[casper]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not discounting the density achieved by the European models, but there seems to be a severe lack of green space there. I know when I traveled to a few big cities in Europe the limited green space was very well used, and it's something I appreciate in even the most urban parts of Vancouver.

Court yards. Most of those building in the back open up to a shared hidden court yard among several buildings.

In many European countries it is common to have your yard in the back not the front. You see the same trend if you look at New York city.

in addition to the court yards, there are also public parks.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

Public parks.

Though, I guess you can't have both 1) high density requiring average people accepting not having back yards AND 2) a defund-the-police environment where you don't dare do anything against parks becoming like Vancouver's DTES.

I think most European cultures would not tolerate what I saw when I lived in Vancouver a couple years ago (nice park right in front of my place but basically unusable).

Public parks per capita are far less there though aren't they?

Even in downtown Vancouver you can walk down a nice tree-lined street in the shade. I don't see that anywhere in these cities.

Nobody brought up the homeless.

[Truenorth00]

The Europeans could do better on greenspace and tree cover. Is it worth the loss of personal space (and affordability) though?

Average apartment sizes (from some quick Googling)

Vancouver - 746 ft²
Barcelona - 969 ft²

Also, I find that we tend to mistake greenspace for quality public spaces. A square in front of the church or townhall in Europe is likely to be a lot more pleasant than some average neighbourhood park in Canada.

Lastly, density and good quality public transport means that you're not very far from actual nature, if you want to go and enjoy some.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Europeans could do better on greenspace and tree cover. Is it worth the loss of personal space though?

Average apartment sizes (from some quick Googling)

Vancouver - 746 ft²
Barcelona - 969 ft²

Also, I find that we tend to mistake greenspace for quality public spaces. A square in front of the church or townhall in Europe is likely to be a lot more pleasant than some average neighbourhood park in Canada.

Lastly, density and good quality public transport brands that you're not very far from actual nature, if you want to go and enjoy some.

All fair points. My condo building has some nice shared greenspace and it is a cool spot to hang out. I also have a few parks in walking distance. I'd hate to have to catch a train to one.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

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.

Funny (sad?) thing is the image last shown of the Montreal stacked triplex next to a Vancouver SF home is that the Vancouver SF home in the photo is typically a primary residence with 2 secondary units.

The current SF home Vancouver model (which actually permits a duplex with 2 secondary units) could easily be changed if density limits were replaced with form-based codes and maybe one additional storey to the main home. The laneway home on these lots are not a bad idea but are poorly laid out due to height and density restrictions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

All fair points. My condo building has some nice shared greenspace and it is a cool spot to hang out. I also have a few parks in walking distance. I'd hate to have to catch a train to one.

Most European cities do have parks in walking distance though. It's not that rare. Vancouver is an exceptionally green city. But it's not like Amsterdam or Copenhagen are that far behind. And I'd argue that your counterpart in those cities probably gets more quality of life for their Euro than you do for your dollar.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Europeans could do better on greenspace and tree cover. Is it worth the loss of personal space (and affordability) though?

Tree cover is just not doable in a built environment that looks like this:

Originally Posted by lio45

I randomly dropped the Street View orange guy in that densest square km in Paris and it looks like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.891118,2...PA5D_Iq5IysxVFgJI67cA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The buildings are tall enough that in terms of shade, you're covered: it's almost guaranteed that at least one of the two sides of that street is going to be in the shade at any given time. Plus, there are awnings, etc. There's all the shade one could ever want.

No one in neighborhoods like this complains about "not enough shade". I'm sure you've been in Paris too; was your main takeaway from that city "wouldn't visit again: not enough shade" ?

[GenWhy?]

Biophilic design and its impacts is not all about shade, however.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Lastly, density and good quality public transport means that you're not very far from actual nature, if you want to go and enjoy some.

My (very outdoorsy) ex-gf did her Masters' at U of A in Edmonton. She lived car-less in a neighborhood full of students, all of them also car-less. She was complaining about the fact they needed to pool resources and rent a car in order to be able to go to Jasper on the weekends.

Opposite example, I have friends in Switzerland, who I know go to the mountains all the time, despite being car-free. (Costs an arm and a leg to have a car over there.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Biophilic design and its impacts is not all about shade, however.

Sure, but we can't have it all. That neighborhood in Paris for example, just could not become full of trees without greatly sacrificing some aspect or another.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Nobody brought up the homeless.

If we ever want to convince middle-class-and-above people to give up their private spaces in order to content themselves with public ones (the way you see in the dense parts of cities like Paris and Barcelona), they'll be part of that conversation.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Tree cover is just not doable in a built environment that looks like this:

The buildings are tall enough that in terms of shade, you're covered: it's almost guaranteed that at least one of the two sides of that street is going to be in the shade at any given time. Plus, there are awnings, etc. There's all the shade one could ever want.

No one in neighborhoods like this complains about "not enough shade". I'm sure you've been in Paris too; was your main takeaway from that city "wouldn't visit again: not enough shade" ?

Fair points. And Europe really shows how dumb our stupid angular plane rules are. By the way, Paris is also undergoing an ambitious transformation plan, aiming to make it the greenest city in Europe:

• Video Link

Mostly though, a bit of grass is not enough to define quality of life for me. But I recognize that some people might be different. That said, blanket statements about European cities not being green are pretty off the mark. In a lot of rankings, Amsterdam and Copenhagen are right behind Vancouver. And in my travels, smaller cities like say Cardiff, as just as green as similar sized cities here.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not discounting the density achieved by the European models, but there seems to be a severe lack of green space there. I know when I traveled to a few big cities in Europe the limited green space was very well used, and it's something I appreciate in even the most urban parts of Vancouver.

Most of these dense blocks have communal courtyards in the centre of each block, heavily used by residents. They are really very nice.



most of the streets in Eixample are treed. Here is a random location, a few blocks from the hotel I was staying in: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3942244,...PuXqFMX_PPAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-US

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by lio45

If we ever want to convince middle-class-and-above people to give up their private spaces in order to content themselves with public ones (the way you see in the dense parts of cities like Paris and Barcelona), they'll be part of that conversation.

Almost every park in Vancouver has not been overrun by encampments. Downtown area parks like Coopers, David Lam, Sunset, Wainborne, English Bay, Chalston, Vanier, Kits, 2nd Beach, Stanley Park... the list goes on - have not been affected.