Mid Rise and Missing Middle Architecture You Want to See

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

You're wrong there. The 2 developments shown here in Norquay have ground level parking. That's common in Norquay. At 1.2 FSR, you don't need underground parking.

https://earth.google.com/web/@49.239...am12N1BTMmcQAg

You're right - some developers will build without underground parking. I was thinking about the new Cambie Plan townhouse projects, which are all putting the parking underground.

Originally Posted by logan5

Even with that calculator, it is still much cheaper to build townhouses.

But it doesn't mean they're much more affordable than condos to buy. Here's a typical Norquay townhouse for sale at $798,000 for 930 square feet. Parking (not underground) is $20,000 extra.

[logan5]

Units at the 12 story Windsor (in Norquay) went for an average of 150/sq foot more. A 29 story tower at Joyce station costs 400/sq foot more than the townhouses in Norquay. Maintenance fees are 50% higher as well.

There are plenty of examples like that all over metro Vancouver. If people prefer to pay extra to live in a tower, then so be it. But right now home buyers don't have much of a choice in housing product.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

Units at the 12 story Windsor (in Norquay) went for an average of 150/sq foot more. A 29 story tower at Joyce station costs 400/sq foot more than the townhouses in Norquay. Maintenance fees are 50% higher as well.

There are plenty of examples like that all over metro Vancouver. If people prefer to pay extra to live in a tower, then so be it. But right now home buyers don't have much of a choice in housing product.

It looks like you can find slightly older apartments in Norquay (in Eldorado for example, and in King Edward Village) at a similar price per square foot. But you're correct, new condos are all still priced at over $1,000 per square foot, and strata fees will be higher. It'll be interesting to see if the new City Plan allows those RM-7 style townhouses to be built in more of the city.

[GenWhy?]

In the vein of this comparison, I think we'd able to get close-ish to those townhome psf build costs in a woodframe 6-storey if we largely cut out the parking, didn't have to rezone and did 2 lot assembly.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

In the vein of this comparison, I think we'd able to get close-ish to those townhome psf build costs in a woodframe 6-storey if we largely cut out the parking, didn't have to rezone and did 2 lot assembly.

Yes. People require less parking these days and the parking requirements are another contentious issue holding the city back on development. Specifically I am thinking that Metro Vancouver should relax parking requirements since the working generation is driving much less and that will continue to trend. Plus transit in Metro Vancouver is relatively easy to access in comparison to other cities.



Something like this I can imagine on West 22nd or West 23rd Avenue (between Oak and Cambie streets) to gently introduce more density.

[Sheba]

Copied from Suburban Updates

Originally Posted by SpongeG

6 Storey proposal, this is just east on Dansey Avenue from the Hensley on Westview

2020-04-27_08-05-50 by snub_you, on Flickr

8 houses have been cleared, 4 on Dansey, 4 on Madore
2020-04-27_08-05-40 by snub_you, on Flickr

2020-04-27_08-06-27 by snub_you, on Flickr

2020-04-27_08-06-11 by snub_you, on Flickr

[Anorak]

Looks great, now just imagine if it was in Vancouver proper

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Anorak

Looks great, now just imagine if it was in Vancouver proper

Like this?



[source: The Grayson, Patrick Weeks]

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

I love anything with an old style to it. I've noticed a lot of planned communities et al adopt either an old style, or a post modern version of it.

Tudor Revival







Craftsman





I wish the 4 storey plus building would adopt the same styles too.

[officedweller]

https://twitter.com/Toon_Dreessen/st...87421861457920

[Migrant_Coconut]

... Former City of Vancouver chief planner and planning consultant Brent Toderian argues that the urban design focus on ensuring angular planes to minimize overlook and shadowing is utterly inconsistent with advancing a range of other crucial planning policy objectives, including climate change, transit, affordability, and equity. “If our urban design isn’t doing that,” he told me this week, “[then] our urban design has lost the narrative.”

The guidelines, which are costly for builders to challenge, institutionalize the City’s foregrounding of the interests of the owners of detached homes situated near the Avenues, and are incompatible with cities that claim to be reducing emissions or are attempting to create more affordable housing, says Toderian, who’s been discussing this exact issue with planning audiences in recent months. “I don’t see nearly enough evidence that we’ve re-thought urban design policy. This should be on the agenda of every single city in Canada...”

That's what most of the podiums and upper setbacks are about? It actually explains a lot.

[fredinno]

-<deleted>-