Cambie Corridor Updates

[dreambrother808]

Agreed.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alon

..Of course some people are collecting those rents. For homeowners, restrictive zoning is a way of having government regulations prop up their property values. It works in exactly the same way that leads companies to try to get rules passed to make it harder for new competitors to sprout, only with zoning it's considered neighborly community activism..

Propping up property values is only worthwhile to a homeowner if you can cash in on them. If you have no intention to sell, it makes no difference. Conversely upzoning is a luck of the draw windfall to homeowners, courtesy of their civic government, this thread on the Cambie Corridor being a prime example.

[dreambrother808]

True. A homeowner's desire to preserve the status quo isn't necessarily greedy or nefarious. It is however at odds with other factors, such as perhaps the greater good. In that respect it could be viewed as selfish.

[Alon]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Propping up property values is only worthwhile to a homeowner if you can cash in on them. If you have no intention to sell, it makes no difference. Conversely upzoning is a luck of the draw windfall to homeowners, courtesy of their civic government, this thread on the Cambie Corridor being a prime example.

A lot of people live their entire lives in an area but then sell during retirement. In the parts of California benefiting the most from the combination of restrictive zoning and capped property taxes, windfall profits on house prices provide assets for retirement, turning people into millionaires at age 70.

Upzoning in an environment where the zoning code either doesn't exist or stays ahead of demand, and where it's easy to build more to satisfy new demand, keeps housing prices at the level of construction cost, minus depreciation. In unrestricted suburban Houston, this is what happens - developers don't make much profit because they can't sell the houses for much more than it costs to put them up.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Alon

Housing is housing. And if the city is expensive as it is, new construction will be luxury, and so people think that all upzoning leads to luxury development. In reality what happens is downfiltering: high-income housing gets reused as low-income housing, sometimes with subdivision into smaller apartments. When you have tight restrictions, what happens is the opposite, upfiltering: richer people renovate run-down buildings and combine small apartments into larger units, and rents go up. ...

Yeah, great post. A lot of people don't think about these issues clearly. I think it's fairly common in Vancouver to simultaneously complain about new development and demand affordable housing, for example. Given this confusion it's not surprising that Vancouver's planning regime is so unbalanced.

[easy as pie]

yeah, it's hit terrorism-level development restriction in san francisco. obviously, neighborhood integrity is important, and the 1960s horror show of "redevelopment" shows us the limits of urban renewal, on both the market side and the planning side. but yeah, in sf, we've basically settled into a zero development policy in the neighborhoods, and insanely restrictive zoning in even the areas of concentrated upzoning - park shading, pro-parking groups, outdated development plans, etc.

obviously, vancouver isn't really where to turn for answers, but you all up there ought to be thankful that your planning office is so strong, that the neighbors haven't yet been able to lock things down.

[Jebby]

I really wish city council would take up the Langara Golf Course proposal. Adding 4,000 housing units there would do wonders for the corridor, not to mention if they demand something like 10% social housing and 15% rentals that would really be a great addition to the city's affordable housing stock.

Those that say it would be a huge loss of green space are exaggerating. The proposal is for only 20% of the golf course, and there are are 3 large parks within walking distance: Winona Park immediately south, Cambie Park across the street to the west, and Tisdall Park immediately north-west of the site. Not to mention Sunset park a few blocks east of the golf course, and Colombia park one station to the north. The city would also most probably demand some green and public spaces in the new development.

[jlousa]

Love to see the FSRs required to get 4000 units in only 20% of the golf course. Little mountain is pulling teeth to get 1800units in on a space in similar size to 20% of a golf course. Must be Vision math at work again, I think you'd be hard pressed to get 4000 units on the whole course.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Love to see the FSRs required to get 4000 units in only 20% of the golf course. Little mountain is pulling teeth to get 1800units in on a space in similar size to 20% of a golf course. Must be Vision math at work again, I think you'd be hard pressed to get 4000 units on the whole course.

Yeah I was skeptical about what I posted. I read in the article that the 20% of the golf course could house up to 7100 people, so I'd guess that would be about 4000 units (majority being 1-1.5 bedrooms). It does seem way too high, though. Still would be amazing to see that sort of density, but that's still 35+ years out for Vancouver.

[WarrenC12]

What not develop that giant Cambie St. Boulevard?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What not develop that giant Cambie St. Boulevard?

But it's a heritage boulevard! It would destroy so much of the city's history. And those trees, do you hate the earth?!

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What not develop that giant Cambie St. Boulevard?

Give Moonbeam, Meggs, & Gordo Price some time...I'm sure we're only a few months away from a "study" that asks the question "does the city really need boulevards anymore... (you know the same way they did for the viaducts, taller buildings, large signage, a proper square, or anything else that doesn't conform to their Swiss alpine village views of what makes up a city etc etc.)

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I really wish city council would take up the Langara Golf Course proposal. Adding 4,000 housing units there would do wonders for the corridor, not to mention if they demand something like 10% social housing and 15% rentals that would really be a great addition to the city's affordable housing stock.

Those that say it would be a huge loss of green space are exaggerating. The proposal is for only 20% of the golf course, and there are are 3 large parks within walking distance: Winona Park immediately south, Cambie Park across the street to the west, and Tisdall Park immediately north-west of the site. Not to mention Sunset park a few blocks east of the golf course, and Colombia park one station to the north. The city would also most probably demand some green and public spaces in the new development.

regardless of the "good" anyone thinks this would create it would set a horrible precedent that would stick for ever. No park should ever be carved up and sold, I could understand situations where some land swaps might work though without setting this sort of precedence. That means that the total size of the park must remain the same or larger, and the functionality of the park must be undamged. I actually think this policy should apply to roads and rights of way as well, and that is why that thin street proposal was complete bs (imo it was just a distraction aqnd was never ment to go through, as you saw something like less then a dozen people had the chance to complain and they quickly got rid of it and highlighted how they listen to peoples concerns and opinions...bs). If you think a neighbourhood street is too wide or not needed then narrow it and widen the planted median or remove it and turn it in to parkspace with a right of way for pedestrians. Obviously land swaps in many situations would make sense but that should still mean no net loss in the area.

Anyways to ghet to the point of my rant here it is.

What I would support is the assembly of single family homes on the east side of the golf coarse and then doing a land swap with the west Cambie side. So in essence shifting the park east by a block and developing the stretch along Cambie. For a developer this would make finacial sense and for the city it would also make sense as it would result in densification along main arterial streets and more housing. As for the residents in the area you would either be one who sold for a profit or one whos house ends up a bloick closer to a major city park. You can set some rules in place for such a transition, so for every block assembled on the east side you would release a equal block on the Cambie side for redevelopment, swap the land and buldoze the single family neighbourhood and turn it in to park space.

*also noticed that on google maps the golf course is no longer green liek it was before (all other golf courses are green like any park). I found this interesting as it means that someone contacted google for the change, and that means that someone actually wants this to happen and will continue to push for this (atleast thats what it "looks" like it could be).

[Daguy]

Golf courses are aesthetically pleasing, but they can't be considered parks in the traditional sense. They typically use higher densities of pesticides and fertilizers than agricultural lands, and are a huge waste of water as well. If the land should be left as park space, then native trees should be planted in much of the fairway space, and left to return to a more natural state. Otherwise, I don't see developing some of the golf course as a problem.

I will mention I used to golf 5 to 6 days a week in the summer, so I understand how golfers will think I'm crazy. I love the game, but it's a serious environmental issue.

[jlousa]

I trust that 4000 units ~6000-7000 residents would use a heck of a lot more water year round then 20% of a golf course consumes. And I say this as someone that has only played 5-6 rounds in his lifetime.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I trust that 4000 units ~6000-7000 residents would use a heck of a lot more water year round then 20% of a golf course consumes.

Those 6000-7000 people are going to use water regardless of where they live.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by cornholio

*also noticed that on google maps the golf course is no longer green liek it was before (all other golf courses are green like any park). I found this interesting as it means that someone contacted google for the change, and that means that someone actually wants this to happen and will continue to push for this (atleast thats what it "looks" like it could be).

Interesting. Though anyone can submit things to google via Google mapmaker.

[dleung]

the entire golf course is 7 times larger than the olympic village, which has 700+ units. You'll need olympic village densities over the entire site to get 4000 units. Little Mountain is essentially trying to fit 250% the number of units within the same area as Olympic Village.

[logan5]

Isn't it 1100 units? Multiply that by 7, that's 7700 units, aprox. 11 000 people.

[federal777]

There has to be more office space built in the region (where are people going to work if there are more condos than office space) and parcels of land along Cambie corridor should not be sold willy-nilly to developers. Companies want buildings next to transit and the city councils seem to be WASTING valuable land around SkyTrain to residential developers.

The Marine Gateway land should not have been sold to developer. It was a perfect site for a office building/tower. Plus, now that residential is going in an industrial area, we will just lose more business land.

I understand that density=ridership, but hasn't Canada Line already exceeded ridership targets and will probably for the forseeable future with development that's already been approved and population increases in other regions of Metro Vancouver.