Transit oriented development in Canada

[someone123]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That sounds like a pretty terrible approach in Vancouver. Disappointing to hear.

It is not really terrible, even though the overall urban planning has not managed to achieve affordable multi-unit housing prices. The TOD itself is an improvement over what existed previously in areas like Brentwood.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is not really terrible, even though the overall urban planning has not managed to achieve affordable multi-unit housing prices. The TOD itself is an improvement over what existed previously in areas like Brentwood.

Yes, in Brentwood it has replaced car dealerships, distribution centres, and other uses, not affordable rental.

[WhipperSnapper]

A bad rental replacement policy isn't the fault of TOD development not that I'm a fan of most TOD development. Theory is sound and it does creates highDr transit ridership. It's also creates islands of densities which charge at a premium. My ideals are geared towards integraded neighbourhoods that employs local service for community needs than TOD which usually streamlines access to rapid regional transit to whisk people off to far away places.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

A bad rental replacement policy isn't the fault of TOD development not that I'm a fan of most TOD development. Theory is sound and it does creates highDr transit ridership. It's also creates islands of densities which charge at a premium. My ideals are geared towards integraded neighbourhoods that employs local service for community needs than TOD which usually streamlines access to rapid regional transit to whisk people off to far away places.

In Vancouver I tend to compare the TOD nodes such as Brentwood not to what was there before but to the alternative of building that infill closer in to downtown, either around SkyTrain stations or at the edge of the medium density mixed-use core that peters out around Main Street these days.

From a planning perspective, Commercial-Broadway is a much more logical place for high density than Brentwood, Metrotown, or Lougheed. The difference is that it is surrounded by NIMBYs instead of large commercial property owners.

Note that the SkyTrain could have been extended to at least connect up VCC to the Canada Line years ago, and that whole area could have been upzoned considerably.

The complaint about cheap walkups being replaced by towers is largely a red herring. You could build 20 affordable units into a 60 storey tower if you wanted. Nobody would miss those old buildings if they could afford a unit in a new building.

[logan5]

There are new rules in Burnaby that protect renters in the old walk-ups. You have to replace the rental units that are being torn down and tey are to be rented at below market rates. Similar rules apply for CoV.

Probly 98% of tower development in Metro Vancouver takes place on a non residential site.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by logan5

There are new rules in Burnaby that protect renters in the old walk-ups. You have to replace the rental units that are being torn down and tey are to be rented at below market rates. Similar rules apply for CoV.

Probly 98% of tower development in Metro Vancouver takes place on a non residential site.

Unfortunately, this kind of policy makes the problem worse city wide by reducing supply.

It does make sense to have high density near transit stops, and it should be encouraged. But in the case of Vancouver there is simply not enough housing being built anywhere, so the high density stuff squeezed close to transit stations is going to be very highly in demand and very expensive, giving the impression that only "luxury condos" are being built and TOD only benefits the rich. But any attempt to decrease the supply of these towers will only make the situation worse, the opposite needs to happen, keep building those towers, plus far more and spread out further from the transit.

[ssiguy]

Don't get me wrong, many of Vancouver's TOD have been well done and replaced commercial or brownfield sites and I think that is wonderful. A favourite in Vancouver is evicting people thru "renovictions" basically forcing tenants out by soaring rents and creating endless construction for the sole purpose to force out the tenants.

[logan5]

High rise condos are expensive because they are expensive to build. Your parking spot alone will cost you $60 000, along with the cost to build and maintain rest of the common areas. Then you have to pay for the technical challenges associated with building a 40 story plus tower.

People try to argue that you have more people sharing the costs, but you still end up paying 1500/sq foot for a high rise condo. For a family sized unit, it is cost prohibitive. A ground oriented wood structure costs far less.

And if you look at Lougheed, or Surrey Central, there are single family homes within a 10 minute walking distance of a Skytrain station. These homes sit on large lots that could accommodate 3 row-homes, yet cities won't rezone these areas to a housing form that provides not only good density that would support walk-able streets, but also provide a cheaper option for family sized housing.

That to me is the major failing of the planning policies across Metro Vancouver.

[ssiguy]

Those homes in Whalley uniformly house low income people and the cheapest condo replacement would be laughably out of their reach. It has NOTHING to do with creating a nicer urban environment and everything to do with money hungry developers and the politicians they bribe.

My own experience......... Surrey wanted to build a rehab and homeless shelter in Cloverdale to "help relocate the disadvantaged in Whalley'. . The people of Cloverdale were furious. The City wrote it off as NIMBYism for the media and to try to shame the people of Cloverdale but we knew better and organised against it.

The City wants to rejuvenate Whalley and create a new downtown which is political speak for development money and an excuse to kick out the homeless and poor. You see, Cloverdale has no 24 hour medical clinics, no government offices, no social service agencies, is over 10 km from a SkyTrain station and the same distance to the nearest hospital. In fact the nearest hospital, Surrey General, is at the SkyTrain station.

All those needed services that these disadvantaged people need are already centred in Whalley and yet the City somehow thinks they will be bettered served in an area that has none. Everyone knew it has nothing to do with helping those people and everything to do with development money and pushing the poor out of the area. The rehab center was planned for a location right beside a liquor store!!

Petitions were started and the City agreed to a town hall in Cloverdale. I went and there were at least 100 people. The problem? The only people there were the security guards the City sent in and the doors to the building were locked. Even the security guards didn't know what was going on until an hour after it was suppose to start that they got a phone call telling them the town hall was cancelled. They never even had the decency to send someone out and tell us in person.

[vanman]

This is a duplicate thread. Original thread is here

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by vanman

This is a duplicate thread. Original thread is here

I missed that one. Moderator, would it be possible to merge the two?

[rbt]

Originally Posted by logan5

High rise condos are expensive because they are expensive to build. Your parking spot alone will cost you $60 000, ...

And even at that price the parking is often sold at a loss to the developer (if excavated). Developers are huge supporters of removing minimum parking requirements; they'd start building closer to 1 space per 50 units ($2M and above units would get a space).

[ssiguy]

It is important when discussing TOD that we distinguish it from pedestrian friendly development as they are very different things.

Metrotown is an example of high density living near a transit station. Excellent example of TOD {if you can afford it} but also an excellent example of an unfriendly pedestrian environment unless you consider a mall as a likeable experience. No one in their right mind goes to Metrotown for enjoy the interesting shops and ambience because it is nothing more than a mega-mall connected to SkyTrain.

NuWest on the other hand has created a vibrant pedestrian friendly environment around the SkyTrain and is welcoming to all income levels. NuWest of course is an old city and already had an interesting downtown but they improved it and made sure that it remained interesting and not an excuse to tear down every last building and M & P stores which is what they are doing in downtown White Rock.

Canada has many new TOD developments but almost none are actually pedestrian friendly in any post-war areas. This is where Canada has failed miserably and why our post-war developments lack community engagement and a "sense of place" no matter how well they are connected to transit.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by logan5

High rise condos are expensive because they are expensive to build. Your parking spot alone will cost you $60 000, along with the cost to build and maintain rest of the common areas. Then you have to pay for the technical challenges associated with building a 40 story plus tower.

As you add more floors construction costs per unit tend to go up but land costs per unit go down. The unit cost of small developments in Vancouver is dominated by land costs, so there's a range of taller developments that are cheaper even if they have a higher development cost per unit. I would guess that medium-sized highrises in the 20-40 storey range fit into that category.

Those $1,500 per square foot prices are well, well above the construction cost floor per square foot. In many North American markets you can buy a 1,000 square foot condo for under $300,000. Labour costs might differ but the construction materials will be the same. Other differences are development fees, land costs, and the sales markup. And of course a lot of condos have premium amenities, finishes, and other features that you wouldn't necessarily need in affordable housing. I bet it is possible to build bare bones 1,000 square foot units in Vancouver for $200,000, land costs and development fees aside (with part of this potentially including amortizing design costs over a large number of buildings that use similar plans; you don't need to reinvent the wheel with every average affordable housing development).

[J.OT13]

I imagine the walkability of TOD areas will always be tied to what was there before. Developers don't seem to have the imagination or the will to build a complete community from scratch.

Here's are examples of TOD proposed in Ottawa. The first is at Blair station, around and partially replacing an existing community mall, the Gloucester Centre (370,000 square feet). Anchors are Loblaws, Wal-Mart, Rexall, a large restaurant in Big Rigs, Bulk Barn and a few smaller shops and services. It also includes a few stand alone retail in the parking lot. The first tower proposed is the one that includes a skywalk to Blair station.

In the adjacent parking lot, we have RioCan's Silver City that includes Scotiabank Theatre, Chapters, a few chain restaurants and a Fit4Less. They've torn down a strip mall for the first three towers (one completed and one u/c), along the Queensway.

Here are some views that include both developments as planned.

Gloucester Centre (with some Silver City)







Silver City



Across the street from these are the offices of CSIS and CSEC.

[J.OT13]

Further east at Trim, Stage 2's terminus, is Petrie's Landing, another example of TOD with terrible walkability/cycling. The station will be where the intersection is seen, at the north-west corner of the park-and-ride. The intersection will be moved to the east of the park-and-ride.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...wers-1.4885912

[Hybrid247]

The LRT corridor west of Bayview will likely see some of the most TOD intensification along the line. Lots of current proposals with some already completed and others currently under construction.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi0O...&index=2&t=10s

[J.OT13]

All of the proposals along Scott now include a lineup of all of the proposals along Scott.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

It is important when discussing TOD that we distinguish it from pedestrian friendly development as they are very different things.

Metrotown is an example of high density living near a transit station. Excellent example of TOD {if you can afford it} but also an excellent example of an unfriendly pedestrian environment unless you consider a mall as a likeable experience. No one in their right mind goes to Metrotown for enjoy the interesting shops and ambience because it is nothing more than a mega-mall connected to SkyTrain.

NuWest on the other hand has created a vibrant pedestrian friendly environment around the SkyTrain and is welcoming to all income levels. NuWest of course is an old city and already had an interesting downtown but they improved it and made sure that it remained interesting and not an excuse to tear down every last building and M & P stores which is what they are doing in downtown White Rock.

Canada has many new TOD developments but almost none are actually pedestrian friendly in any post-war areas. This is where Canada has failed miserably and why our post-war developments lack community engagement and a "sense of place" no matter how well they are connected to transit.

I agree with you on all of the above. Metrotown is hardly pedestrian-friendly; there is even a heavy reliance of beg buttons at intersections (something Burnaby seems to rely on heavily compared to some other Metro Vancouver cities).

[vanman]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

All of the proposals along Scott now include a lineup of all of the proposals along Scott.

Impressive. Did Ottawa upzone an entire neighbourhood around an O train station or all of these proposals individual rezonings?