EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[logan5]

5 units on 44' lots wasn't there before. That's a significant move.

On paper this looks like a major game changer for the CoV housing market. Really don't know though how much development this will trigger. We've seen how quickly Cambie Street (on the West Side) has transformed, so I would think that we will see a lot of houses on the West Side being developed into 6 or 8 units as soon as this passes.

[idunno]

Agreed - this is very exciting policy.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Probably what's going to happen is that everybody in the SFH business switches to multiplexes. I doubt we'll see neighbourhoods transform overnight - too few small developers, and the big ones would rather build townhome projects or larger.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Probably what's going to happen is that everybody in the SFH business switches to multiplexes. I doubt we'll see neighbourhoods transform overnight - too few small developers, and the big ones would rather build townhome projects or larger.

I think we already see the future, today. My impression is that on RS lots in the CoV independent developers pretty much never build SFHs anymore unless they're ultra luxury mansions. Most new SFHs you see were built by the owner; Developers looking to resell are all building duplexes (and where already permitted, they build multiplexes).

When city wide multiplexes become legal and as long as the market is the way it is, development patterns will probably look identical to today; except all the new duplexes will be new multiplexes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, there's a lot of unfounded hysteria about how all of BC will turn into Hong Kong by the end of the year (while we're at it, why is it always Hong Kong?), when it'll actually be more like Montreal over the next 3-4 decades.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, there's a lot of unfounded hysteria about how all of BC will turn into Hong Kong by the end of the year (while we're at it, why is it always Hong Kong?), when it'll actually be more like Montreal over the next 3-4 decades.

The rate of replacement in Vancouver seems so low to me that I think it's more likely that in 3-4 decades Vancouver will look less like Montreal and more like Vancouver with a few more multiplexes.

Prove me wrong, though, my developer brothers and sisters!

[GenWhy?]

I could be wrong, but I think speed and cost will come down to, as a umber one factor besides the actual zoning or folks selling / developing the land, simplicity and copy-paste of avaialble designs to mutliple lots. Across one city, and between cities.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, there's a lot of unfounded hysteria about how all of BC will turn into Hong Kong by the end of the year (while we're at it, why is it always Hong Kong?), when it'll actually be more like Montreal over the next 3-4 decades.

Funny how it's never Singapore or Monaco, both of which are denser than Hong Kong overall. The CoV isn't even that far off from Hong Kong's overall population density too 5,749.9/km2 versus 6,749.2/km2 from a quick Googling, 115,000 more people and the CoV will be the same density.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I could be wrong, but I think speed and cost will come down to, as a umber one factor besides the actual zoning or folks selling / developing the land, simplicity and copy-paste of avaialble designs to multiple lots. Across one city, and between cities.

That sounds pretty practical to me, and there is no time to waste getting on with it. The housing crisis is more than just a conversation topic now. It's a full-fledged disaster & has to be brought under control ASAP.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by mcj

Funny how it's never Singapore or Monaco, both of which are denser than Hong Kong overall. The CoV isn't even that far off from Hong Kong's overall population density too 5,749.9/km2 versus 6,749.2/km2 from a quick Googling, 115,000 more people and the CoV will be the same density.

Comparing all of Hong Kong to CoV isn't a fair comparison, comparing it to Metro Vancouver (917/km2) is better.

Even singling out the West End at 23k/km2 is barely half the density of Kowloon.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

while we're at it, why is it always Hong Kong?

The British connection maybe. Lots of people familiar with both places.

[rickvug]

A while back there was some really good work done on the "teardown cycle" in Vancouver and how many single family homes would be replaced over the coming years. Check out this visualization: https://mountainmath.ca/teardowns. There is some more information here: https://www.canadianarchitect.com/new-forecasting-tool-ubc-predicts-houses-risk-teardown.

How the introduction of these new housing options will impact the speed of change remains to be seen. A critical factor we don't know about yet is what additional city fees will be charged. There's a good chance that the city will ask for enough "density bonus" or similar amenity contribution that the overall rate of change doesn't increase by much. They are too afraid of land value lift and leaving "free money" on the table.

Personally I hope that the city doesn't lean far in this direction. It is about time that Vancouver tried to let multifamily buildings be built without artificial constraints to see what actually happens. Make sure that other municipalities do the same as well as to not create scarcity around these small multifamily redevelopment opportunities, driving up land values. Get all the small builders on side, making good profits as to create a boom in construction. Do that until the market is saturated to the point where prices start to moderate, neutralizing that initial excess profit opportunity. Perhaps the theory will be wrong and prices will rocket ever higher but at least we tried moving beyond the ridiculous status quo of so much land being locked up for only "single family".

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mcj

Funny how it's never Singapore or Monaco, both of which are denser than Hong Kong overall. The CoV isn't even that far off from Hong Kong's overall population density too 5,749.9/km2 versus 6,749.2/km2 from a quick Googling, 115,000 more people and the CoV will be the same density.

Generally speaking, HK gets more press in North America than Singapore (unless it's a political statement about state housing, zero-tolerance drug policy and/or personal liberty)... and I'm guessing Monaco is far too European to scare anybody.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

and I'm guessing Monaco is far too European to scare anybody.

And too wealthy. It doesn't really fit the "slaves living in a shoebox in the sky" narrative.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by madog222

Comparing all of Hong Kong to CoV isn't a fair comparison, comparing it to Metro Vancouver (917/km2) is better.

What makes it unfair? That's the whole reason density is on a per km2 basis, so you can compare two differently sized areas. Hong Kong overall some super dense areas like Kowloon as you point out, but there's also lots of green space with no population density. The CoV has a similar density but instead of the having ample green space like Hong Kong does there's much larger seas of low density areas, I guess that's something the hysterical people that think we'll "turn into Hong Kong" must prefer over a combination of dense towers and ample green space.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by mcj

What makes it unfair? That's the whole reason density is on a per km2 basis, so you can compare two differently sized areas. Hong Kong overall some super dense areas like Kowloon as you point out, but there's also lots of green space with no population density.

I don't know how the density figures mentioned above were calculated, but if the denominator for Hong Kong included the numerous mountains that have nary a soul living on them that would not be a fair comparison. Yes, we have Stanley Park, but the country parks in Hong Kong are significantly larger.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I don't know how the density figures mentioned above were calculated, but if the denominator for Hong Kong included the numerous mountains that have nary a soul living on them that would not be a fair comparison. Yes, we have Stanley Park, but the country parks in Hong Kong are significantly larger.

Yeah that's sort of my point, Vancouver's density includes Stanley Park / QE / the Beaches / all the other smaller parks, and Hong Kong's overall density includes all of it's green space (same for that Metro Van density that was thrown out that includes the vast and inaccessible areas of the north shore mountains, ALR land, etc.). The point is that Vancouver could have substantially more green space within the CoV if the CoV actually looked like Hong Kong.

Just an argument to show that we are in no way about to actually look like Hong Kong since if the CoV did we'd be able to open up a bunch more Stanley & Queen Elizabeth sized parks.

Take the Kowloon density comparison for example, if the CoV had the same density the whole city could fit on 16 km2, leaving 99 km2 for green space.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I think we already see the future, today. My impression is that on RS lots in the CoV independent developers pretty much never build SFHs anymore unless they're ultra luxury mansions. Most new SFHs you see were built by the owner; Developers looking to resell are all building duplexes (and where already permitted, they build multiplexes).

When city wide multiplexes become legal and as long as the market is the way it is, development patterns will probably look identical to today; except all the new duplexes will be new multiplexes.

FSR 1.0/6 units would give developers a lot more incentive to build, vs 2 units and only 0.6 FSR (duplex), so i would expect development in RS zones to accelerate considerably.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

Yeah that's sort of my point, Vancouver's density includes Stanley Park / QE / the Beaches / all the other smaller parks, and Hong Kong's overall density includes all of it's green space (same for that Metro Van density that was thrown out that includes the vast and inaccessible areas of the north shore mountains, ALR land, etc.). The point is that Vancouver could have substantially more green space within the CoV if the CoV actually looked like Hong Kong.

As someone who knows a lot of people from Hong Kong, I can guarantee you that people in Hong Kong do not use the New Territories "green space" like Vancouverites use Parks Board parks.

I don't know how familiar you are with HK but that "green space" looks a lot less like [THIS] and [THIS] and [THIS] and a lot more like [THIS] and [THIS] and [THIS]. That's three different parks in Vancouver, and three different parks in Hong Kong.

That's not to say that Hong Kong doesn't have city parks like Vancouver, but the bulk majority of the greenspace is rugged peaks and valleys. Hong Kong "feels" far more dense and restricted as a result.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

FSR 1.0/6 units would give developers a lot more incentive to build, vs 2 units and only 0.6 FSR (duplex), so i would expect development in RS zones to accelerate considerably.

Like I said, that'd require rezoning for townhouses or larger in order to attract big-time developers; failing that, you'd need more indie developers, more builders (currently have a shortage IIRC) and more people wanting to sell, and Vancouver's not going to get a massive increase of any of those.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You'd need more developers, more builders (currently have a shortage IIRC) and more people wanting to sell. Vancouver's not going to get a massive increase of any of those.

In theory, more profit to be made means more developers, more builders, and more sellers. If a formerly two million dollar property can be converted into a quadruplex with four one million dollar properties that's two million dollars in profit that's on the table.