601 Beach Crescent | 166m | 56 Fl | Proposed

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

Lift zoning regulations even just to four story multi-family across the 70%+ of the city that's single family home only zoning, and you'll do more for housing costs than 100 years of plinking together units or money from this or that development to build at 400k/unit in some concrete highrise. Exponentially expand the buildable land, and property values will tank as mom-and-pop builders go crazy replacing Vancouver Specials with 20 unit four story low rise buildings. The solution is so obvious that it takes a political agenda or investment in the current artificial land shortage not to see it.

I agree with this. Throw everything we can at the problem. Take big swings and stop playing small.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

The solution is so obvious that it takes a political agenda or investment in the current artificial land shortage not to see it.

I believe the agenda is "needing to get re-elected in ridings that're full of left-wing or right-wing reactionaries."

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

Lift zoning regulations even just to four story multi-family across the 70%+ of the city that's single family home only zoning, and you'll do more for housing costs than 100 years of plinking together units or money from this or that development to build at 400k/unit in some concrete highrise. Exponentially expand the buildable land, and property values will tank as mom-and-pop builders go crazy replacing Vancouver Specials with 20 unit four story low rise buildings. The solution is so obvious that it takes a political agenda or investment in the current artificial land shortage not to see it.

doing something like this will help loose the essence of Vancouver. not everyone wants to live in some overpriced strata box.

SFH have a lot more greenspace than any multi-unit does, and i thought greenspace is something Vancouver was liked for.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

doing something like this will help loose the essence of Vancouver. not everyone wants to live in some overpriced strata box.

SFH have a lot more greenspace than any multi-unit does, and i thought greenspace is something Vancouver was liked for.

SFHs will always be available for those who can afford them. Why not open up zoning and let the free market work?

[TheTerminalCity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

doing something like this will help loose the essence of Vancouver. not everyone wants to live in some overpriced strata box.

SFH have a lot more greenspace than any multi-unit does, and i thought greenspace is something Vancouver was liked for.

Few Vancouverites today can afford the 'essence of Vancouver' these days.

[Joseph K.]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

doing something like this will help loose the essence of Vancouver. not everyone wants to live in some overpriced strata box.

SFH have a lot more greenspace than any multi-unit does, and i thought greenspace is something Vancouver was liked for.

I can point at least 2 fallacies with that old tired argument repeated over and over again by Vancouver NIMBYs. I'm just so sick of hearing this lazy excuse that I'm taking a break from lurking this forum just so I can take apart your logic.

First off, greenery isn't inversely proportional to density; FSR is. Mid-rise apartment buildings can still be designed with a small footprint that leaves plenty of that precious green space on a plot, either with a setback that leaves space in front of the building (I'm looking at you, sad seldom-used grassy Kitsilano front yards...), or by bringing buildings closer to the street and creating European-syle connecting courtyards in the back. There you have population increasing dramatically, while still maintaining a significant amount of green space.

Furthermore, having a lot of green space doesn't necessarily mean Vancouverites get to enjoy it. In SFH zoning, that green space most accessible to a family is limited to their own front lawn of backyard. Up-zoning can, and most often will, open up much larger areas of green space to residents, and possibly to the general public, either with connecting courtyards as mentioned above, or by increasing the tax base in a given neighborhood, thus providing more funding for new parks and public squares, and better amenities for existing parks.

It's all common sense. We don't even have to look far: one can't argue West End and Fairview aren't green and dense. Density and greenery can go hand in hand. If preserving green spaces really is a priority, then you should be demanding zoning laws that protects them while allowing for the city to grow organically around them.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Or any other major city in the developed world? What's your point?

Are you for real? Do you not see the basic problem this is ? VancouveroftheFuture posed some questions that you should be asking:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

everyone talking about the social housing, etc. is really just a red hearing. the question everyone should be wondering about is this.

why is housing so expensive that our real economy (jobs, workers, etc.) cant afford to live anywhere near their job? considering housing prices should correlate to the economy of the city, why does it not? our economy isn't based on much, other than perpetual construction and the service industry. there is more at play, and that is the real question. no one seems to be able to answer that, other than when someone finally did, but then everyone forgot. offshore money & money laundering. now that's the real issue.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by scryer

Are you for real? Do you not see the basic problem this is ? VancouveroftheFuture posed some questions that you should be asking:

Do you somehow think that a city can exist that is dense, desirable, vibrant, affordable, and full of SFHs?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet we expect them to work in the downtown core.

Why doesn't someone working fulltime as a waiter or bank teller have as much opportunity to live downtown as some millionaire student from Malaysia?

You asked and answered your question. Because they don't have the finances to, just like most of us don't have the finances to live DT.

Who is going to staff the Starbucks? Let the Starbucks figure that out.

If they have staffing problems at minimum wage, either they leave the market, or they raise wages until they become acceptable enough to attract people.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

Lift zoning regulations even just to four story multi-family across the 70%+ of the city that's single family home only zoning, and you'll do more for housing costs than 100 years of plinking together units or money from this or that development to build at 400k/unit in some concrete highrise. Exponentially expand the buildable land, and property values will tank as mom-and-pop builders go crazy replacing Vancouver Specials with 20 unit four story low rise buildings. The solution is so obvious that it takes a political agenda or investment in the current artificial land shortage not to see it.

Preach!

That's why even debating this issue isn't fun anymore.

Its so clear now the only restrictions holding us back from changing things are entirely ones of our own making - policy, ink on paper.

Anyone talking about solutions without mentioning this is just peddling self interest in one way or another.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

He just wants those developer millions to fund his wasteful programs and luxury chairs. What an useless mayor Vancouver has.

Even then, happy to see this move forward. Too bad it isn't just a little taller, say 60 floors and 180 meters.

By how he was unable to handle the park homeless camps, he's already the most useless mayor ever. Like you said, he and his council folks are probably really desperate for development money now since so many developers have abandoned Vancouver and move to nearby cities due to past and current policies that we all have been discussing to death. But it's a building I want in this neighbourhood, so despite everything, I'm glad it will be built.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

By how he was unable to handle the park homeless camps, he's already the most useless mayor ever. Like you said, he and his council folks are probably really desperate for development money now since so many developers have abandoned Vancouver and move to nearby cities due to past and current policies that we all have been discussing to death. But it's a building I want in this neighbourhood, so despite everything, I'm glad it will be built.

So you still haven't understood that the mayor has no jurisdiction over parks? But he does have one vote towards approving this rezoning. So that's relevent, even if the park homeless part isn't.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So you still haven't understood that the mayor has no jurisdiction over parks? But he does have one vote towards approving this rezoning. So that's relevent, even if the park homeless part isn't.

The City in general, has no mandate to house homeless or under privileged to begin with, yet here we are.

When its to the benefit of the public there is always a reason why it cant be done.

When it concerns the City not running the city, but focusing on putting up housing that is actually the job of Province and Feds, it always finds a way to involve itself.

Interesting how that works.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

doing something like this will help loose the essence of Vancouver. not everyone wants to live in some overpriced strata box.

Isn't this the essence of Vancouver?
(.....nowadays)

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

SFH have a lot more greenspace than any multi-unit does, and i thought greenspace is something Vancouver was liked for.

And hence, all the wonderful viewcones protecting all those precious views to all that greenspace on those mountains for all of us to enjoy.
......
....

I'm joking.


Okay,......only half-joking.
......on both points.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

there is no reason Vancouver cant have a dense and vibrant downtown core. it can also have its SFH neighbourhoods as well. but not everyone wants to live in a box with people next to, above, and below them. not everyone wants their kids to play in a playground on-top of a building. not everyone wants to deal with that many people around them all the time. that's why downtown should be dense and vibrant, and why SFH neighbourhoods should remain as well. Oakridge, Marine, Joyce is a good balance. it doesn't overdo it, but it still adds.

rezoning the majority of the city is the wrong move. it will make developers happy. they can sell these units for a higher $/sqft than a SFH. so now they make more money, while quality of life decreases overall.

this doesn't even go into the health impacts of people who live in dense cities. many studies have shown health isn't as great, nor is happiness. one interesting thing about the pandemic is that death rates per-capita were quite a bit higher in dense areas.

as for view-cones? well i do think there are too many for sure. but i also think it is important to not block out the mountains entirely. and clearly most Vancouverites like viewcones as you don't hear many complaining outside of forums like this.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you somehow think that a city can exist that is dense, desirable, vibrant, affordable, and full of SFHs?

Quote me where I said that... I'll wait.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

there is no reason Vancouver cant have a dense and vibrant downtown core. it can also have its SFH neighbourhoods as well. but not everyone wants to live in a box with people next to, above, and below them. not everyone wants their kids to play in a playground on-top of a building. not everyone wants to deal with that many people around them all the time. that's why downtown should be dense and vibrant, and why SFH neighbourhoods should remain as well. Oakridge, Marine, Joyce is a good balance. it doesn't overdo it, but it still adds.

rezoning the majority of the city is the wrong move. it will make developers happy. they can sell these units for a higher $/sqft than a SFH. so now they make more money, while quality of life decreases overall.

this doesn't even go into the health impacts of people who live in dense cities. many studies have shown health isn't as great, nor is happiness. one interesting thing about the pandemic is that death rates per-capita were quite a bit higher in dense areas.

as for view-cones? well i do think there are too many for sure. but i also think it is important to not block out the mountains entirely. and clearly most Vancouverites like viewcones as you don't hear many complaining outside of forums like this.

Surely you must see the logical fallacy in that spot of reasoning.

You can't conclude that most people "like something" just because you (personally or otherwise, .....but anecdotally in either case) don't hear them or "many complaining".

Especially if they don't know what the direct impact of that thing in question is on their lives directly in order to have an opinion about it either way.

That's the reason most people in a forum like this will complain about it, since a lot of people who frequent a forum like this will likely be informed enough to be able to draw the correlation between something like viewcones and the availability of affordable housing or the general cost of living in a city like vancouver where both most definitely are a problem.

It's a fair thing to argue that most Vancouverites like the view of the mountains since that's something that the city in general has come to be identified with, outside the city and hence brings with it a sense of pride.

But it's also equally fair to argue that most of those same folks are uninformed about what the cost on their own lives that the effort to preserve those views (and from places they don't even frequent) really is or could be.
So much so that to just assume that most people like "viewcones" (as opposed to the mountains themselves and the views of them) is a just a massive jump to a logically tenuous conclusion

[Migrant_Coconut]

Not everybody should have to live in a studio apartment. Likewise, not everybody needs three floors, three bedrooms, and two bathrooms... nor is that sustainable in a city that's rapidly approaching the three-million mark. Not when it's entirely possible to raise a family in a 1100 sqft home.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

this doesn't even go into the health impacts of people who live in dense cities. many studies have shown health isn't as great, nor is happiness. one interesting thing about the pandemic is that death rates per-capita were quite a bit higher in dense areas.

The infection/death rate is much more to do with social control. Singapore has a total of 44 dead, and they are infinitely denser than we are.

[a very long weekend]

Great - you want to live in your single family home? We set a minimum 4 story as-of-right zoning across the entire city of Vancouver, and the cost of a single family home will probably go down. Plus, you're in your single family home, a mere change of zoning doesn't mean that you must move or sell or anything! Just means you have a few more neighbors. What's not to like?

Unless what you're saying is that you want to restrict housing development, and keep housing prices super high by requiring that neighborhoods remain ultra low density . . . because you like it, and believe housing policy should reflect your personal preferences and serve your interests?

Anyway, EVERYONE should be opposed to this. If you're on the left, this is a giant scam by the rentier and landowning class to cycle money upward into their pockets. If you're in the center, you look at Canada's housing policy and realize that deliberately legislating some of the world's highest housing costs is diverting money from productive uses, like new business or science or whatever investment that actually grows the economy. If you're on the right, you're looking at the demand curve and thinking to yourself that this whole dynamic is deliriously out of whack - it's a legislated artificial land shortage!

AND EVERYONE IS RIGHT!

[rofina]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

Great - you want to live in your single family home? We set a minimum 4 story as-of-right zoning across the entire city of Vancouver, and the cost of a single family home will probably go down. Plus, you're in your single family home, a mere change of zoning doesn't mean that you must move or sell or anything! Just means you have a few more neighbors. What's not to like?

Unless what you're saying is that you want to restrict housing development, and keep housing prices super high by requiring that neighborhoods remain ultra low density . . . because you like it, and believe housing policy should reflect your personal preferences and serve your interests?

Anyway, EVERYONE should be opposed to this. If you're on the left, this is a giant scam by the rentier and landowning class to cycle money upward into their pockets. If you're in the center, you look at Canada's housing policy and realize that deliberately legislating some of the world's highest housing costs is diverting money from productive uses, like new business or science or whatever investment that actually grows the economy. If you're on the right, you're looking at the demand curve and thinking to yourself that this whole dynamic is deliriously out of whack - it's a legislated artificial land shortage!

AND EVERYONE IS RIGHT!

A reasonable post. Get out of here with your logic!

Had to highlight those two points because they are so salient. This whole mess is literally created by ink on paper.

We like to preach mountains, ocean, and border, and while natural constraints exist, those are not the primary driver.