EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's even worse in the suburbs - for example, roughly 35,000 Burnaby residents in Metrotown/Brentwood are propping up the other ~195k.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Totally agree. Downtown Vancouver is subsidizing the rest of suburb Vancouver: from Shaughnessy to Kitsilano, from Vancouver West to East Vancouver.

The population density speaks for itself, with Vancouver being more than twice as densely populated as Burnaby. That means Vancouver is utilizing its infrastructure far more efficiently. And the performance gap between the 2 cities is only getting larger. In the last 10 years Burnaby has grown by 26 000 people, while Vancouver has grown by 60 000 people, with the CoV being only 6 sq miles larger.

[Sheba]

78% of Vancouver residents calling for more housing options and density: survey

Amidst a housing affordability crisis, the vast majority of respondents in an open public survey conducted by the City of Vancouver have unsurprisingly expressed a need for more housing choices in all neighbourhoods.

The survey in Fall 2021 was part of the Vancouver Plan’s phase three public consultation on the emerging directions and concepts for determining the future citywide plan.

The municipal government says 78% of respondents either strongly or somewhat agreed that there should be a range of new housing options in all neighbourhoods, especially within areas that currently have low density.

As well, over 80% support low-rise apartments up to six storeys, multiplexes, and townhouses in areas that are currently mostly dedicated to single-detached dwellings. Nearly half (48%) also said mid-rise buildings up to 12 storeys are acceptable.

More than three quarters (77%) supported rental housing along smaller, local roads within neighbourhoods, and 68% agreed that all neighbourhoods should have more housing options by increasing allowable heights and density for those who make under $80,000 annually.

...

[trofirhen]

However bitter, it has to be swallowed and accepted. The medicine of inevitable city densification, that is. A city the size of Vancouver today will reach a predicted 3.8 million by the year 2050.
That's about 1.1 million more than it is now (at a presumed 2.7 million). We all know the geographic constraints of Vancouver, how popular it is to live in, and how it will continue to grow, squeezed in on all sides.
It is a shame to think of some formerly wooded streets and old houses biting the dust for new, denser development, but there's really no way around it. Good planning can mitigate the changes, however.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's even worse in the suburbs - for example, roughly 35,000 Burnaby residents in Metrotown/Brentwood are propping up the other ~195k.

I am in tri-cities, so not sure if this is the same everywhere in Metro, but the last time the city utility bill came around, the rates had been adjusted so that they were lowered for condos and townhouses, and raised for sfd, with the rationale provided that the changes would make the rates better reflect the servicing costs. I doubt they fully corrected for the difference, but a step in the right direction.

[FarmerHaight]

It's easy to support providing new housing options in single-family neighborhoods as long as it isn't MY neighborhood. When we move from broad support to specific projects, you better believe that the NIMBYs who live on the same block as a proposed six-story apartment building will continue to fight it to the bitter end. When densification involves tearing down MY family home, or blocking MY view, or casting shade on MY backyard... well that's a lot harder to swallow than tearing down some other person's dilapidated home in some poor neighborhood that's a blight on the city's reputation anyways.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by GMD

I doubt they fully corrected for the difference, but a step in the right direction.

That is a step in the right direction, but fully including the capital and maintenance costs for a SFH neighborhood on the homeowners' tax bills would make property taxes prohibitively expensive for all but the top earners. The video I shared uses the example of Lafayette, LA, and how average annual property taxes would need to increase from $1.5k to $9.2k to cover the replacement costs of aging infrastructure. Now, Lafayette has a lot of old infrastructure and a dwindling tax base, but how many SFH owners could afford even a two- or three-fold increase in property taxes?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by GMD

I am in tri-cities, so not sure if this is the same everywhere in Metro, but the last time the city utility bill came around, the rates had been adjusted so that they were lowered for condos and townhouses, and raised for sfd, with the rationale provided that the changes would make the rates better reflect the servicing costs. I doubt they fully corrected for the difference, but a step in the right direction.

We especially notice it when calculating our overall development fee costs. The one I love calculating the most is the TransLink one.

SF home in 2022 = $2,993/unit
Apartment in 2022 = $1,554/unit

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

The population density speaks for itself, with Vancouver being more than twice as densely populated as Burnaby. That means Vancouver is utilizing its infrastructure far more efficiently. And the performance gap between the 2 cities is only getting larger. In the last 10 years Burnaby has grown by 26 000 people, while Vancouver has grown by 60 000 people, with the CoV being only 6 sq miles larger.

Nope, not at all.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WALKIEBRO

Yep. That cost to the city for servicing a 300 unit tower with average value of 750k is far less than the cost of servicing 150 detached homes with average value of 1.5mil, even though the tax revenue is the same.

Well said! That is why suburb cities are densifying a lot, especially at neighbourhoods close to skytrain stations, unlike many of Vancouver's own suburbs, which are failing miserably.

Originally Posted by GMD

I am in tri-cities, so not sure if this is the same everywhere in Metro, but the last time the city utility bill came around, the rates had been adjusted so that they were lowered for condos and townhouses, and raised for sfd, with the rationale provided that the changes would make the rates better reflect the servicing costs. I doubt they fully corrected for the difference, but a step in the right direction.

Totally love the idea, but agree with you that this rate charging difference is still a far cry from the actual servicing costs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Nope, not at all.

Got any evidence to back up your claim?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by logan5

The population density speaks for itself, with Vancouver being more than twice as densely populated as Burnaby. That means Vancouver is utilizing its infrastructure far more efficiently.

Vin response...

Originally Posted by Vin

Nope, not at all.

One post later...

Originally Posted by WALKIEBRO

Yep. That cost to the city for servicing a 300 unit tower with average value of 750k is far less than the cost of servicing 150 detached homes with average value of 1.5mil, even though the tax revenue is the same.

Vin response...

Originally Posted by Vin

Well said. That is why suburb cities are densifying a lot.

Lol. Vin, you gotta stop with the mindless kneejerk responses.

[GenWhy?]

View the last page of this link to see a map of what is not zoned for apartments in Vancouver (roughly, as you can see Kerrisdale isn't marked on it). Everything in white is your standard 3-4 unit SF home lots (duplexes with secondary units), everything else is industrial or multifamily or office.

https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/zoning/p...red-rental.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

And here's a comparison.

Downtown: 16,764/sq km (link)
Fairview: 10,200/sq km (link)
Mount Pleasant: 9,000/sq km (link)
Kitsilano: 7,883/sq km (link)
Grandview-Woodland: 6,342/sq km (link)
Point Grey: 2,937/sq km (link)
Dunbar: 2,502/sq km (link)
Kerrisdale: 2,368/sq km (link)
Vancouver: 5,749/sq km (link)

Metrotown: 11,477 sq km (link, link)
Brentwood: 5,199 sq km? (link)
Burnaby: 2,569/sq km (link)

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

View the last page of this link to see a map of what is not zoned for apartments in Vancouver (roughly, as you can see Kerrisdale isn't marked on it). Everything in white is your standard 3-4 unit SF home lots (duplexes with secondary units), everything else is industrial or multifamily or office.

https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/zoning/p...red-rental.pdf

Good thing there are people who see how unsustainable our housing rezoning policies are, and thus pushing for this. However, other crippling development policies such as Viewcones will still limit the rate of improvement.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Vin response...

One post later...

Vin response...

Lol. Vin, you gotta stop with the mindless kneejerk responses.

Not at all, just wouldn't bother getting into the lengths if you can't even fathom how Burnaby's rate of development has outstripped the so-called traditional "Crown Jewel" of the Lower Mainland. Not just Burnaby, but New West, Surrey, Richmond, etc. as well. Just drive around many neighbourhoods of Vancouver and you can see how time has simply stopped for many of these places, with many decaying musty neighbourhoods that can easily be mistaken for the Third World.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Good thing there are people who see how unsustainable our housing rezoning policies are, and thus pushing for this. However, other crippling development policies such as Viewcones will still limit the rate of improvement.

Agreed. Every neighbourhood in the city allows for multi-family development more-so than before, approved by Staff and Council (finally).

I think we're around a 1/3 of developable city land that is your standard "duplex max" zones.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Agreed. Every neighbourhood in the city allows for multi-family development more-so than before, approved by Staff and Council (finally).

I think we're around a 1/3 of developable city land that is your standard "duplex max" zones.

On paper (ie. the map) it looks really good, but in reality Vancouver is already way behind other municipalities, which are already in advanced stages of densifying their town centres. Our sole town centre which is currently being redeveloped: Oakridge Town Centre, is still in the preliminary stage of construction. Other higher density neighbourhoods, such as Collingwood, River District, Kerrisdale and Marine Gateway, are nothing compared to suburb town centres, both in terms of residential capacity as well as commercial vitality.

Well, at least it's a start, but it does say how backward we are.

[logan5]

Vin, you are completely ignoring the fact that the CoV is densifying at a greater rate than Burnaby.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

On paper (ie. the map) it looks really good, but in reality Vancouver is already way behind other municipalities, which are already in advanced stages of densifying their town centres. Our sole town centre which is currently being redeveloped: Oakridge Town Centre, is still in the preliminary stage of construction. Other higher density neighbourhoods, such as Collingwood, River District, Kerrisdale and Marine Gateway, are nothing compared to suburb town centres, both in terms of residential capacity as well as commercial vitality.

Well, at least it's a start, but it does say how backward we are.

Agreed. Burnaby puts new development in a few select areas around SkyTrain of former industrial, malls, parking lots, and Vancouver spreads its new development out across the whole city, requiring lot assemblies, and around old streetcar high streets, bus lines, employment. They're just simply 2 different development styles.