Quote:
Originally Posted by Hmoob
I read that very differently. I read business owners pointing out that there's a market for the product they sell, and a societal interest in having that product available. They're indicating that the current regulatory regime is interfering with their ability to provide that product, to society's detriment.
We need more housing, and office space, and community support spaces (unless we somehow limit population growth in the metro region). How are we incentivising the development of that space? Telling developers that they've had it too good and can handle a harder reality certainly doesn't encourage more construction.
It's clear that some here aren't interested in hearing what developers understand as their impediments to production. How would you propose we enable the significant pace of required construction?
Alternately, how would you go about limiting population increase? We could go with the status quo of pricing out anyone who doesn't have enough money to make it here. Or we could set up a lottery system to determine who's allowed to move here and stay. We could even bias it to disfavour certain nationalities (wink wink, nudge nudge). Does that sound ok to anyone?
The more I hear some of the complaints on this forum, I suspect that people are more interested in finding someone to blame than in finding a realistic path forward. We aren't going to find a perfect path. Some developers might make some money in the process. The city may change in ways that upset some of its residents. Reality. Let's do our best to meet the needs of this amazing, growing city and the people who live here.
|
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Although this is Canada, and not the USA, Seattle sprang to mind when I read your post, and of course the BIV article.
And you're right, certain 'options' for limiting - or encouraging - growth here would never be acceptable.
But Vancouver, being in Canada, is somewhat over-regulated, it seems.
Seattle, which is much more corporate friendly than Vancouver, has laxer laws (I believe) when it comes to development, and builds more of everything: more office space, more housing, (rentals there apparently wooing tenants ....) but whether the city or state has actually given legal incentives for all this is something I'd like to know more about.
Just a comparison, anyway, and I leave detailed explanations to the people in business and finance on SSP to interpret this.
But yeah, office space, affordable housing, and maybe more transportation infrastructure would help. Maybe start by tweaking the viewcones.
A thought provoking thread, this.