Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

The production time on a 2 story town home is fraction that of a high-rise.

But these aren't 2 storey town homes. They're 3 storey stacked with an apartment under a 2 or 3 bed townhome, with common party walls, over underground parking, so they're a strata.

Originally Posted by rofina

This is easily the best solution to our ills, for various reasons.

For one, if this was a blanket rezoing to every SFH block in Vancouver 3 things happen immediately;

1. Land speculation is dead. You know exactly what you can build. No rezoning process. No variances. No density bonus'.
2. Condo market takes a significant hit as many buyers re-prioritize this type of dwelling.
3. Above 2 have a knock on effect and reduce the cost of assemblies, thereby reducing costs on all housing units.

There would be no negatives from this, beyond changing neighborhood character.

Changing neighbourhood character can't be dismissed so easily. Those are the people who vote, and their homes are what a large proportion of the population aspire to (realistically or otherwise).

Assemblies won't cost less than assessed value - it'll probably be more if hold-out owners are going to be persuaded to sell. Detached house prices went down, a bit, for a while. To create this sort of assembly (12 lots each 10m wide) even on the east side is going to cost at least $20m, and that's paying current market value, not a premium. It was higher a couple of years ago.

House prices have turned up again over the past few months. Unless we see another downturn in future, all these will offer is a better chance for a family of buying a $1m+ townhouse, rather that a $1.7m detached home. But they won't have a suite and/or laneway house as mortgage helpers, and they will have to pay a strata fee, (and strata insurance).

So more of these might help add to the stock of near the ground slightly more affordable family housing, but at 1.4FSR you don't even achieve double the density of detached + laneway, and you'll have fewer rental units (no laneway, no rental suites).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Hmoob

Looking at those numbers, and expecting we're going to have another ~250,000 people in Vancouver City in the next 20 years (based on proposed 40% metro growth and Vancouver city taking roughly it's share), we're going to need to do a lot of upzoning, one way or another.

We will need upzoning, although there's plenty of that in the pipeline. The City is only expected to add just under 120,000 more people over 20 years according to Metro Vancouver's plan. That's in line with the 117,000 that were added from 1996 to 2016.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by giallo

37 units on a half block, and it's all at a "human scale". Like others have mentioned, this sort of design needs to be implemented absolutely everywhere in the city.

My only complaint is that the one bedroom units seem to outnumber the 2 and 3 bedroom ones. I'd much rather have the family-size units (3 bedroom) be more prevalent.

Only when those 3 bed units get to market they are so expensive it's hard to believe many families choose them. I wonder how mnay are rented out to three Amazon techs sharing a place.

Example:
https://www.rew.ca/properties/R2421585/4...rchable_id=364&searchable_type=Geography

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That data is for Metro Vancouver, not the City of Vancouver, and it's the number of single family dwellings, not the population. The City of Vancouver has 41,330 single family homes. If it was ever agreed to upzone to allow this sort of density then you might add up to 100,000 more homes, although that would take decades to actually happen. (And if this scheme was the basis, half would be 1-bed apartments)

Ouch, that's embarassing. I stand corrected.

Why only 100k though? Not trying to start anything, but we're literally talking about going from 6 homes to 62; even if every SFH already has both a basement and laneway unit, that's still triple/quadruple our existing stock.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

But these aren't 2 storey town homes. They're 3 storey stacked with an apartment under a 2 or 3 bed townhome, with common party walls, over underground parking, so they're a strata.



Changing neighbourhood character can't be dismissed so easily. Those are the people who vote, and their homes are what a large proportion of the population aspire to (realistically or otherwise).

Assemblies won't cost less than assessed value - it'll probably be more if hold-out owners are going to be persuaded to sell. Detached house prices went down, a bit, for a while. To create this sort of assembly (12 lots each 10m wide) even on the east side is going to cost at least $20m, and that's paying current market value, not a premium. It was higher a couple of years ago.

House prices have turned up again over the past few months. Unless we see another downturn in future, all these will offer is a better chance for a family of buying a $1m+ townhouse, rather that a $1.7m detached home. But they won't have a suite and/or laneway house as mortgage helpers, and they will have to pay a strata fee, (and strata insurance).

So more of these might help add to the stock of near the ground slightly more affordable family housing, but at 1.4FSR you don't even achieve double the density of detached + laneway, and you'll have fewer rental units (no laneway, no rental suites).

Moodyville in North Van has similar units with a locked off suite. That's what these should be to offer a mortgage helper and rental housing all in one.

Its daunting to make a pro-forma work in Vancouver on anything "affordable," I maintain that taking out some of the rezoning uncertainty, risk and not to mention time would reduce the costs all around.

Its not an ideal solution. But probably the best of the bunch.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ouch, that's embarassing. I stand corrected.

Why only 100k though? Not trying to start anything, but we're literally talking about going from 6 homes to 62; even if every SFH already has both a basement and laneway unit, that's still triple/quadruple our existing stock.

In this case you're going from six to 62, but these are all 66' wide lots. Most of the city has 33' lots, so you'd go from twelve to 62. This project has 24 1-bed units at 508 sq. ft., which is unusual. The 2-bed are around 1,000 sq ft, the 3-bed from 1,121 to 1,245sq.ft. A more typical project would have all family sized units, and would probably achieve 50 homes.

So with more typical townhome projects you're more likely to add about 3 times the number of units. The 100,000 was a rough estimate, but with this calculation I'd agree that 120,000 more could be added in total.

However, that would mean tearing down every single family dwelling in the city, including those that are heritage, or character homes. Some will be like this on larger lots, so could see a higher number gained, but some are on 25 foot lots in older areas like Strathcona (where you could see fewer added as a result).

These projects are only 1.2FSR. so only about 50% higher than the density that can be built on a detached lot which can have 3 units, if it has a lane. (the added density for the parking underground isn't counted). As I noted elsewhere, you're adding some density to create strata ground oriented townhomes, but you're trading that for rental units, and you generally have to assemble a number of homes to create a site big enough to make the parking work. The reason they work more easily near Cambie is that there are some big lots, so less assembly is required, and you get big bang for your buck in terms of unit increase. That's quite different on E28th, for example.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

Moodyville in North Van has similar units with a locked off suite. That's what these should be to offer a mortgage helper and rental housing all in one.

Its daunting to make a pro-forma work in Vancouver on anything "affordable," I maintain that taking out some of the rezoning uncertainty, risk and not to mention time would reduce the costs all around.

Its not an ideal solution. But probably the best of the bunch.

There are a few projects in Vancouver with lock-off suites, (including in the Cambie Plan area) but they cost more. They're allowed in all these projects, but as potential owners struggle to pay for the unit they want to occupy, adding the cost of a lock-off suite makes that harder. Here's one that's $2.25m for example.

I don't have any solution to making more family housing more affordable either - I just don't want anyone to think there's a magic solution if we 'just' rezoned all the single family lots to townhomes. They're still pricey, and it would change the character of some areas significantly, and we'd lose some potential rental suites.

[Hmoob]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't have any solution to making more family housing more affordable either - I just don't want anyone to think there's a magic solution if we 'just' rezoned all the single family lots to townhomes. They're still pricey, and it would change the character of some areas significantly, and we'd lose some potential rental suites.

That's fair; It's too bad this world doesn't have more magical solutions.

I still have to believe that broad upzoning of more land, single family homes or otherwise, will help lower land costs over all, on a price-per-developable-square-foot.

Mechanistically, limiting the number of sites available for rezoning allows land holders to name their price. Those exclusive sellers can even delay sale to further drive the market to a frenzy and drive up costs further. (Why sell today if I'll get more by waiting until next year?) Then, even land not specified for development goes up in price because, hey, that's what land costs in Vancouver.

Alternatively, if large areas of the city were immediately simultaneously upzoned with limited burden to development, developers could chose which lots to buy. Sellers would lose their bargaining power in the transaction. The price of developable land would drop. And then the price of other land would drop too.

Look back through Feathered Friend's posts/blog to see comments from owners of development-adjacent properties. One of the complaints he reports is that they wish their property were similarly upzoned so they could sell out.

Maybe 1.2 FSR isn't enough to bring housing costs down, but as long as the city restricts development to so few properties, land speculation will make good money.

[logan5]

A city wide up zoning to at least 1.2 FSR would unlock a lot of land. 1.2 is the same density that is used in the most recent Norquay plan, and is spurring redevelopment of single family homes. Nothing magical about up zoning. It’s an effective way to increase supply of housing product, and more specifically a housing product type (townhouse) that is more affordable than high rise units.

[cyclinginvancouver]

4869 Slocan Street - DP-2019-00979
(Consolidated lots 4859 + 4865 + 4873 + 4879 Slocan Street)

4869 Slocan Street - DP-2019-00979
(Consolidated lots 4859 + 4865 + 4873 + 4879 Slocan Street)
Gradual Architecture Inc. has applied to the City of Vancouver for permission to develop a four-storey Multiple Dwelling building, proposing approximately:

1.95 FSR total site Floor Space Ratio;
42.50 foot overall height;
forty (40) Strata Dwelling Units and ten (10) Rental Lock-Off Units; and
one level of underground parking containing forty (40) off-street vehicle stalls and ninety-five (95) Class-A bicycle stalls, having access from the rear lane.

Under the site’s existing RM-9AN zoning, the application is “conditional” so it may be permitted; however, it requires the decision of the Director of Planning.

We welcome your written comments (letter or e-mail) on this development application. Comments should be received on, or before March 17, 2020, to be included in the staff review. However, comments will be considered up until the date of decision.

[Feathered Friend]

Previous Concept


Revised Concept

Urban Design Panel Reverses Course With Support Of Higher Nanaimo Street Benchmark

2336-2366 Charles Street
As it’s been roughly nine months since we last saw this project, Hannah and I were starting to wonder if it might be dead. However, thanks to a question from a speaker at last month’s public hearing, we learned a revised version was about to be made public. Unsurprisingly, we recognized many of those who opposed permitting townhomes and a four storey building on the 2300 blocks of Kitchener and Charles Streets as those vehemently against this application.

To be clear, I’m not saying these people were responsible for the bad behaviour and abuse we witnessed at the pre-application or city-led open house events. Obviously, the Urban Design Panel was far more professional when they reviewed this proposal last year, but agreed this innovative “monstrosity” should be resubmitted. That’s led to a lot of changes, but the applicant’s goal remains to set a new benchmark for quality on Nanaimo Street while respecting the neighbourhood and promoting social inclusion.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2020/02/26...port-of-higher-nanaimo-street-benchmark/

[cov]

I'm just happy to see ground-floor retail. I can totally see Nanaimo st blossoming to become something like commercial dr or kits. It's unfortunate that this project is experiencing so many obstacles when it's such a common midscale building that Vancouver has been building since the 50s. Not sure if the sawtooth roofing is really worth the trouble tho.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by cov

I'm just happy to see ground-floor retail. I can totally see Nanaimo st blossoming to become something like commercial dr or kits. It's unfortunate that this project is experiencing so many obstacles when it's such a common midscale building that Vancouver has been building since the 50s. Not really sure if the sawtooth roofing is really worth the trouble tho.

Nanaimo could be a great street. There is some buzz and energy in Hastings Sunrise, it would be nice to build on that with some additional mid-density and retail along Nanaimo.

[scryer]

This one is nothing short of excellent for Nanaimo street !

[cyclinginvancouver]

The City has received an application to rezone 1325 West 70th Avenue from RM-3A (multiple dwelling) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) to allow for the development of a 6-storey residential building including:

a total of 65 secured market rental units;
a total floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.38;
a total floor area of 4,492.63 sq. m (48,358.32 sq. ft.);
a maximum height of 19.05 m (62.51 ft.); and
50 underground parking stalls and 112 bicycle spaces.
The application is being considered under the Marpole Community Plan

A community open house will be held on Monday April 6, 2020, 5:00 pm-7:30 pm at the Marpole Neighbourhood House, 8585 Hudson Street, with City staff and the applicant team available to answer questions.

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1325w70thave/index.htm

[cyclinginvancouver]

The City has received an application to rezone 1265-1281 Kingsway from C-2 (Commercial) to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) to allow for the development of a 6-storey mixed-use residential building including:

a total of 43 secured market rental units;
commercial at grade;
a total floor space ratio (FSR) of 3.70;
a total floor area of 3,962.67 sq. m (42,653.87 sq. ft.);
a maximum height of 20.88 m (68.6 ft.); and
51 underground parking stalls and 89 bicycle spaces.
The application is being considered under the Secured Market Rental Housing (Rental 100) Policy.

A community open house will be held with City staff and the applicant team available to answer questions. Date and location TBD.

You can provide comments by filling out our online feedback form.

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1265-1281kingsway/index.htm

[Feathered Friend]

A “SHORT” Road To A Warm Place Ultimately Leads To Unanimous Urban Design Panel Support

1425 and 1451 East 12th Avenue
As the layout of these two buildings has essentially been prescribed by external factors, Hannah and I didn’t expect they would undergo an Urban Design Panel review. After all, forcing a non-profit housing provider to endure the tens of thousands of dollars in costs that come with these meetings appears to go against the spirit of the SHORT Program. That policy is well-intentioned, but like many things that are, it has also paved the way to an overly warm place.

That failing isn’t with these homes themselves, as several panellists expressed that the seniors who will live here will appreciate how its passive house sustainability level will keep them warmer in the winter. Rather, when they crafted this policy, city council failed to realize that the cheapest land is often the least wanted. As a result, most of the properties under the SHORT Program have had inherent challenges, and this one is no exception.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2020/03/09...to-unanimous-urban-design-panel-support/

[Feathered Friend]

Urban Design Panel Decision Paves Way For City Council To Reconsider Neighbourhood Prohibition Of Rental Housing

4750 Granville Street and 1494 West 32nd Avenue
It’s not often that a project goes to the Urban Design Panel before it’s presented to the public at an open house. Then again, rental homes are rarely proposed in Shaughnessy, and this one might be the last for many years to come as the upcoming city-wide Secured Rental Housing Policy will forbid any others. In fact, the only reason this one can move forward is that it’s grandfathered under the closed AHCIRP.

That said, a similar application under the same program down the street from this one was just rejected by city council last year. Unsurprisingly, that decision appears to have created a real fear in city staff that our elected officials will once again find any reason to reject attempts to diversify this community. This applicant has paid the price for that, as they’ve been instructed to make several costly changes, including asking their northern neighbour to sell their home.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2020/03/13...hbourhood-prohibition-of-rental-housing/

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

this shouldn't be built in Shaughnessy, and i will stand by that in perpetuity. Shaughnessy isn't the neighbourhood for these developments.

if this was on Oak Street, it would be fine, but not Granville in Shaughnessy.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

this shouldn't be built in Shaughnessy, and i will stand by that in perpetuity. Shaughnessy isn't the neighbourhood for these developments.

if this was on Oak Street, it would be fine, but not Granville in Shaughnessy.

That's silly. Granville is basically a highway.