EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[Sheba]

More provinces sign up for rent benefit as Liberals set up promised housing council

Seven provinces have signed on to a federal rent assistance program created as part of the national housing strategy, newly released documents show.

So far, the Liberals have only announced deals with four provinces to deliver the Canada Housing Benefit to vulnerable renters, such as low-income families, Indigenous people, veterans and newcomers.

Money is already flowing to Ontario, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and British Columbia but documents tabled in the House of Commons last week show three more unnamed provinces have signed up for cash.

The jointly funded federal-provincial housing benefit is tied to an individual, rather than a subsidized unit that someone could lose when they move to a different dwelling.

The government says the dollar amounts and the names of the three added provinces will eventually be revealed in official announcements that have been delayed because of the pandemic.

Sunday is National Housing Day. It also marks three years since the Liberals unveiled the decade-long housing strategy.

The Liberals have added more programs to the strategy over time, including a $1-billion, short-term initiative to help cities and housing providers buy properties and turn them quickly into affordable housing units.

Municipalities have said they plan to spend the money quickly to force the case for the government to top up the fund.

...

[Sheba]

Dan Fumano: 'Every problem is a housing problem' that shouldn't be left to municipalities

Analysis: What lessons can Vancouver learn from San Francisco, where a severe housing crisis has become a cautionary tale for other cities?

[jollyburger]

This seems more appropriate for further wood tower design. But there was also this design that isn't as blocky/rectangular in Fairview:



https://perkinswill.com/project/canadas-earth-tower/

[DKaz]

Just an observation, it's crazy how the skyline of the West End has not changed much if at all in the last 30+ years. The only thing indicating that the background image is newer than 10 years old that I notice is the Ferrari Maserati dealer on the left.

[Sheba]

B.C. puts $2B toward low-interest loans for builders of affordable housing

The B.C. government is investing $2 billion in a low-interest loan program for builders of affordable housing.

Housing Minister David Eby said Thursday the financing will be offered to private developers and community groups through the province's HousingHub program, a division of B.C. Housing.

The funding will target projects for renters and buyers with average household incomes of $75,000.

Eby said the loans will be provided at below-market rates and in return, developers will commit to passing the construction savings on to residents through more affordable rents and housing prices.

The loans will be repaid once construction is complete, allowing HousingHub to reinvest in more units, he added.

Finance Minister Selina Robinson said the funding is part of Budget 2021, which will be unveiled in full next week.

...

[Migrant_Coconut]

That's about 7-10 million square feet. Better late than never, I guess.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Dan Fumano: 'Every problem is a housing problem' that shouldn't be left to municipalities

Analysis: What lessons can Vancouver learn from San Francisco, where a severe housing crisis has become a cautionary tale for other cities?

Resolving the housing crisis, or even alleviating it, would imply more housing that is rental and not owned, as ownership is prohibitively expensive for most people.
That said, current rents being as extortionis in nature as they are, I cannot understand why rent increases have not been limited or indexed to match the inflation rate at a given % per year.
The immediate response is no doubt akin to "But if you do that, there will be no incentive to build more." Was tere no incentive to build more in the '80s and 90s?

Did the developers all flee? I rather think not. Landlords nowadays are simply profiting from the critical shortage of supply which drives prices through the roof. So why can there be no controls, yet with incentives to build?

Developers are a cagey lot. Years and years back, when Concord Pacific was caught with its pants down selling condos in Vancouver exclusively in HK, Victor Li haughtily replied that if he was pressured further, he would pull up stakes and go elsewhere, theoretically depriving Vancouverites the luxury of CPs presence in town. But he did not leave, and we are all the richer for that.
The point is, will intervention to keep prices somewhat normal cause housing development to come grinding to a halt? I leave that to others to determine. I think it may be a good point to consider and debate, and, hopefully, to determine a course of action thereupon.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Dan Fumano: 'Every problem is a housing problem' that shouldn't be left to municipalities

Analysis: What lessons can Vancouver learn from San Francisco, where a severe housing crisis has become a cautionary tale for other cities?

Key, from that article, which I've run up against for 10 years as I've been advocating that the province step in and get real on the anti-growth neighbor/planning dept.alliance:

The idea of taking any powers away from mayors and councils in B.C. would be controversial. But, Boston said, if done right, it could actually serve the municipalities’ interests well.

“Our housing market is regional, our employment activity is regional, our transportation regime is regional, but we make these land use decisions at a municipal scale,” Boston said. “We need the regional government, Metro Vancouver, to have more authority and require things to happen.”

Step in, take certain zoning decisions out of city hands, starting with . . . oh, I don't know . . . the zones around the new multi-billion dollar rapid transit extensions? Nobody could say no, and Vancouver's permanent staff is, yet again, working on their own ultra conservative plan.

NDP could do this and cloak it in some progressive jibber-jabber and get the entire ball rolling.

[Sheba]

Can apartment blocks exist on Vancouver side streets? Why not?

The idea that apartment buildings should be built along busy commercial arterials — and not on quiet, leafy side streets — is a widely and deeply held belief in Vancouver, but it’s by no means universal.

City staff and politicians often hear from folks, especially homeowners, who view the character of Vancouver’s residential side streets as sacrosanct. But many renters, a group who make up slightly more than half of Vancouver households, say they would welcome the chance to live in a new purpose-built rental building a short walk from — but not directly above — a busy commercial thoroughfare.

City hall is currently considering two moves aimed at encouraging the production of rental housing, both of which stem from years of previous consultation and work, including the 10-year Housing Vancouver strategy adopted in 2017 by the previous city council. The first change would make it faster and easier for developers to build six-storey, mixed use developments along many arterial commercial streets — two floors more than the four already allowed there — if the residential portion of the building is rental instead of market condos.

The second part of the proposal, though, looks at allowing four-storey apartment buildings in many low-density areas currently zoned for single detached houses and duplexes. This includes looking at both areas on lower-density parts of arterial streets — contemplating options for five-storey market rental projects or six-storey social housing buildings there — as well as off of arterials.

It’s the last part of the proposal, concerning off-arterials, that’s likely to be the most contentious: the changes look at allowing four-storey rental buildings on side streets near arterial roads or up to five storeys of social housing on a side street flanking an arterial.

...

The city is doing another round of engagement online at shapeyourcity.ca/rental-rz, with a public survey running until June 25, and a pair of “virtual information sessions” on June 1 and 3.

A public hearing and final decision from council is expected in the fall of this year, but debates around which buildings belong on Vancouver’s side streets seem unlikely to end there. This could be a key question in next year’s municipal election.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Can apartment blocks exist on Vancouver side streets? Why not?

Exactly, this is just another one of Vancouver's policies that makes no cow sense: having the most number of people living long the noisiest and most polluted thoroughfares, with all the side streets becoming desolate and severely underutilized. This also applies to commercial usage. I'm surprised such things even need to be debated about.

Feels like the City is and desires to continue being a backwater town.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

Exactly, this is just another one of Vancouver's policies that makes no cow sense: having the most number of people living long the noisiest and most polluted thoroughfares, with all the side streets becoming desolate and severely underutilized. This also applies to commercial usage. I'm surprised such things even need to be debated about.

Feels like the City is and desires to continue being a backwater town.

And yet Vancouver is allowing highrises in the side streets around Oakridge in the latest Cambie corridor plan. Maybe get your facts straight instead of throwing out random anecdotes.

Maybe look at all the sprawl across your beloved Burnaby. You probably think that the highrises they're building justifies the SF houses that line the majority of both arterial and side streets. I'm eagerly awaiting your flawed reasoning that will soon follow.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Generally, we want the majority of residents closer to transit and amenities when we densify - otherwise it's just more suburbistan.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Vin

Exactly, this is just another one of Vancouver's policies that makes no cow sense: having the most number of people living long the noisiest and most polluted thoroughfares, with all the side streets becoming desolate and severely underutilized. This also applies to commercial usage. I'm surprised such things even need to be debated about.

Feels like the City is and desires to continue being a backwater town.

Once in a while I go for a walk in the Kerrisdale area (particularly south of 41st/west of Arbutus) and the mixed residential is fantastic. Apartment towers (not just 4 stories) and walkups are mixed into the SFH areas. The variety of density makes for such a nice area that can support genuine commercial on 41st. All that's missing is a wee bit of commercial activity in the residential zone - some coffee shops for example. So many neighbourhoods would benefit from this type of zoning - the area around Memorial Park, Killarney Park, Champlain Heights, etc etc.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Once in a while I go for a walk in the Kerrisdale area (particularly south of 41st/west of Arbutus) and the mixed residential is fantastic. Apartment towers (not just 4 stories) and walkups are mixed into the SFH areas. The variety of density makes for such a nice area that can support genuine commercial on 41st. All that's missing is a wee bit of commercial activity in the residential zone - some coffee shops for example. So many neighbourhoods would benefit from this type of zoning - the area around Memorial Park, Killarney Park, Champlain Heights, etc etc.

You are exactly right. I think the current zoning bylaws are too inflexible and "by-the-book": not allowing organic growth based on the needs and wants in different neighbourhoods. A lot of mixed neighbourhoods were built before current strict bylaws were introduced in recent times, hence we still see some variety in some older neighbourhoods, such as certain spots of Mount Pleasant, Strathcona and Kerrisdale. However these are fast disappearing when newer developments take over. The City continues to be inflexible and timid in many ways when it comes to long term development initiatives and strategies. I am thinking that one of the problems we have is that the City does not have world-class planners who can see the long term growth strategies of communities, and thereby implementing bylaws specific to particular areas. Rather, we have the current City-wide OCPs that everyone must follow and obey. If we continue the status quo, Vancouver would definitely lose its soul as a vibrant and interesting city, and it is already showing in many ways. You can't keep basking in the glory of yesteryears.

I can see suburban neighbourhoods that used to be dead becoming alive these days, and all they do is allowing more mixed-use growth, not along one single "Commercial" street, but on a wider scale. One such example is the Lower Lonsdale neighbourhood (its vibrancy has surpassed Vancouver's squeaky clean Coal Harbour, and can rival Yaletown these days). Up-and-coming neighbourhoods include New Westminster Quay, Station Square area of Metrotown, and Richmond's City Centre. These town centres used to be very dead, but are now rather vibrant. If they continue the current path of progress, they will draw even more people away from Vancouver's downtown.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Can apartment blocks exist on Vancouver side streets? Why not?

This goes to Public Hearing in about November this year and this and the commercial area changes have faced a year delay already of "research it more" by Council... with an election in 2022... don't colour me surprised if it gets voted down or delayed for the Vancouver Plan (another famous line by Greens and NPA).

[officedweller]

Yeah, the concentraion of low-rise and mid-rise density along arterial streets (eco-density) was to preserve existing single family enclaves in behind.
The high rises away from Cambie and 41st Ave in Oakridge are more in response to the town centre plan, rather than a change to the density on arterials policy.
If that were the case, you'd see more areas like Upper Fairview across the West Side.
I think Marpole is also an exception, but it too is part of a community plan.

[Sheba]

It's a small world after all... Adding needed housing supply is easier said than done — just ask our friends in the U.K.

While housing prices have been rising rapidly in metropolitan areas across the developed world, new housing construction has not kept pace with demand. Building more housing, even when it is urgently needed, is easier said than done.

Canada is not alone in struggling to build enough housing to provide affordable shelter alternatives to its growing population. For example, a recent commentary in The Economist exposed the frustrations of successive British governments in failing to meet the stated objective of building 300,000 new homes each year. But that’s not all. The housing being built there is not where it is needed the most nor is it conducive to sheltering young families.

...

Britain has loosened land-use control over the years by allowing construction on farmland near urban centres, converting industrial buildings to residential use and building taller buildings. Yet, these concessions have not delivered sufficient new housing in the right places as the “local authorities had indeed been acting as a break on development,” Anthony Breach of the Centre for Cities told The Economist.

The current government in Britain outlined its pro-development agenda in a White Paper last year that encouraged local authorities to create a ten-year development plan and recommended limiting residents to comment on development applications.

However, recent electoral outcomes in Britain have favoured those who opposed new housing developments and, in one instance, a high-speed rail line. The conflicting priorities of existing and future homeowners have led to development gridlock in Britain.

...

Communities across Canada agree that housing prices have been rising faster than incomes, leaving many would-be first-time homebuyers feeling that they have been priced out of the ownership market. However, a consensus on how to tame the price rises is lacking. Measures to curb demand by increasing transaction or ownership costs get more airtime, yet such measures, even when implemented, have not delivered the desired outcome of affordable housing prices.

Constructing more housing will help. However, the need for consensus on more construction is urgently needed. The local and higher tiers of government must be on the same page to facilitate new housing construction.

Those who aspire to be future homeowners must organize as lobbying and voting blocks to counteract the pressures brought by the NIMBYs against new housing developments.

[jollyburger]

It's funny to read "experts" come up with their theories about why coyotes are attacking people. On one hand they'll say they've never heard of coyotes attacking people. Or they have like a 20 item list of possible reasons coyotes attacking people. My personal favourite:

"The behaviour of some of these individuals suggest they've ingested toxins or drugs, possibly opioids. There's also some indication of possible abuse of these animals," she said.

Or they say a coyote was spotted in the water thereby inferring even if you cull the coyotes they will make a magical amphibious landing to return.

https://www.iheartradio.ca/move/broc...our-1.15868630

Calling coyote attacks rare might be true when you have a limited population but it's more common than they seem to frame it.

According to researchers Lynsey White and Stanley Gehrt from Ohio State University, coyotes bit 159 North Americans between 1960 and 2006, and the frequency of these encounters has been increasing steadily since 1985. Shelley Alexander and Michael Quinn from the University of Calgary report that from the 1970s to today, there have been 17 attacks in Alberta, 12 in B.C., 10 in Ontario, three in Nova Scotia and one in Saskatchewan, with adults accounting for more than half of those who suffered injuries. A Parks Canada database shows more than 60 “unacceptable encounters” since 2003 in seven national parks in Alberta, B.C., Nova Scotia and Manitoba.

https://www.explore-mag.com/when-coyotes-attack

More recent data: https://urbancoyoteresearch.com/site...oteAttacks.pdf

At the least they should trap all the coyotes and equip them with GPS collars which is common for other research studies of urban wolf populations.

[Vin]

WILL VANCOUVER GROW AS FAST AS ITS SUBURBS?
A draft 30-year plan calls for limiting growth in Vancouver, pushing new residents to the suburbs.

https://www.sightline.org/2021/08/25...s-its-suburbs/

This is good read (a lot more in the article):

Vancouver is perceived throughout North America as a vanguard in refocusing growth in the urban core. But the reality is that for decades, there has been a tragic mismatch between where people want to live—Vancouver proper—and where the region has built most new housing—the surrounding suburbs.

Metro Vancouver is currently updating its regional growth strategy, the official road map for how the region will grow through 2050. But while lifting bans on townhomes and small apartments in detached-house neighborhoods has widespread support across the city of Vancouver, a recently released draft plan calls for the city of Vancouver to be the slowest-growing part of the Metro Vancouver region over the next 30 years.

If things play out as envisioned in this draft, the result will be even higher home prices and more exclusion in Vancouver. Elsewhere in the region, it will mean longer commutes, more climate pollution, and accelerating loss of farms and forests.

The Metro Vancouver 2050 plan is a critical opportunity to create a better future for the region by reversing that trend and reining in a half century of sprawl. Allowing growth in the city of Vancouver instead of pushing it away is the key to a more affordable, low-carbon region.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Vin

WILL VANCOUVER GROW AS FAST AS ITS SUBURBS?
A draft 30-year plan calls for limiting growth in Vancouver, pushing new residents to the suburbs.

I read through this and very quickly picked up a bias - that everyone in the region would live in Vancouver if only they could. It's the kind of thing that's said by someone who spends most / all of their time in Van and rarely ventures into anywhere else in the region.

The claim that everyone works in Van has long since been busted, so longer commute times due to living in the suburbs and working in Van is not true. Even the article says "about one-third of all the jobs in the region" are in Van - which means about two-thirds are not (I'm not going to double check what the actual numbers are).

Then there's the whole section about how people living in Van can travel around without needing a car vs everywhere else being very car dependent, so therefore everyone should live in Van. There's no mention about how Van has much better transit service and that improving transit service in the rest of the region would help a lot.

I will agree that keeping a lot of Van as SFH is a bad idea, something that plenty here would agree with.