Mid Rise and Missing Middle Architecture You Want to See

[Migrant_Coconut]

WRT West 4th, the Burrard-Macdonald stretch is slowly adding one 4-5 floor modern glass box after the other, and so far it's been a pretty smooth transition (as least compared to the flare-up over that MIRHPP on Larch). The type of architecture doesn't appear to make a lot of difference to Citizens Against Virtually Everything.

Though I do wonder if some kind of small mansion flat could work in the snootier areas? Spacious units, classy Old World aesthetic, high unaffordability... sounds right up Shaughnessey's alley:



(The Telegraph)

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Though I do wonder if some kind of small mansion flat could work in the snootier areas? Spacious units, classy Old World aesthetic, high unaffordability... sounds right up Shaughnessey's alley:

Some people really are Citizens Against Virtually Everything.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Though I do wonder if some kind of small mansion flat could work in the snootier areas? Spacious units, classy Old World aesthetic, high unaffordability... sounds right up Shaughnessey's alley:

Like "Chateau Laurier" by Landa Global?

The final release of move-in ready suites are now selling at Chateau Laurier in Shaughnessy
https://www.livabl.com/2020/04/final...hnessy-bc.html


https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/ca/chateau-laurier

[Migrant_Coconut]

Kind of like that, yeah. Here, I'm assuming that Granville's NIMBYs oppose poor people in the neighbourhood, but not density (this dummy notwithstanding).

[logan5]

It's an illusionary trick by developers that we need to be building towers of any height. Most single house lots in Metro Vancouver are 60 feet wide. That's large enough to fit 2 houses that can come with secondary suites and coach houses. That would provide homes for around a million people and completely negate the need for pricey condos for 25 years.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's an illusionary trick by developers that we need to be building towers of any height. Most single house lots in Metro Vancouver are 60 feet wide. That's large enough to fit 2 houses that can come with secondary suites and coach houses. That would provide homes for around a million people and completely negate the need for pricey condos for 25 years.

Just need to create a dictatorship to push that plan through.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's an illusionary trick by developers that we need to be building towers of any height. Most single house lots in Metro Vancouver are 60 feet wide. That's large enough to fit 2 houses that can come with secondary suites and coach houses. That would provide homes for around a million people and completely negate the need for pricey condos for 25 years.

I don't know about the rest of Metro Vancouver, but in the City of Vancouver the vast majority of detatched lots are 33 feet wide. Increasingly they're not single family, as about half have a suite, and several thousand have a laneway rental.

[misher]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's an illusionary trick by developers that we need to be building towers of any height. Most single house lots in Metro Vancouver are 60 feet wide. That's large enough to fit 2 houses that can come with secondary suites and coach houses. That would provide homes for around a million people and completely negate the need for pricey condos for 25 years.

This would go against the metro van environmental plan that calls for most densify to be built around transit. This is due to economies of scale as heating a house is a lot more wasteful than a condo building plus using transit/walking to work is better than driving.

It’s not developers pushing for density it’s environmentalists.

[logan5]

Whatever way you shape density, you are going to get better efficiency. Even with ground oriented housing, you will get very walkable neighbourhoods, and good transit. The Riley Park section of Main Street is a good example. It is almost all detached homes that have been subdivided, and that is enough to support very walkable streets and frequent transit.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

It’s not developers pushing for density it’s environmentalists.

Then developers are fighting viewcones and NIMBYs for no reason - ditch the towers and build duplexes instead! /s

[dreambrother808]

The answer for me is Paris. Build those mid-rises everywhere. Nothing less than that height/density should be the limiting factor in any neighbourhood plan. Scatter high-rises into pockets of higher density like we are already doing. Do everything we can policy-wise to ensure those ubiquitous mid-rises can be as economical as possible (no CACs, no or minimal UDP and public engagement, just rather a streamlined process to pump out as much product as possible).

[misher]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The answer for me is Paris. Build those mid-rises everywhere. Nothing less than that height/density should be the limiting factor in any neighbourhood plan. Scatter high-rises into pockets of higher density like we are already doing. Do everything we can policy-wise to ensure those ubiquitous mid-rises can be as economical as possible (no CACs, no or minimal UDP and public engagement, just rather a streamlined process to pump out as much product as possible).

Thats very bad for sustainability.

[Sheba]

There's also New Classical Architecture in Townhouse Developments.

[logan5]

I'm going to post the Altus Group’s annual Construction Cost Guide. As it shows, there is a huge difference in construction costs between high-rise and ground oriented housing (like stacked townhouse and row-house). Row-houses can be built at less than half the cost of high-rise units.



This shows only construction costs, so high-rise units get even more costly when you include higher maintenance fees, and other fees that go along with the process.

If Metro Vancouver were actually serious about providing affordable housing, they would be zoning for ground oriented housing on a much larger scale. Instead we are force fed expensive high rise condos. The game is fixed.

https://creston.ca/DocumentCenter/Vi...st-Guide-web-1

[GenWhy?]

Those numbers seem very low. Some seem 50-100 dollars psf off.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm going to post the Altus Group’s annual Construction Cost Guide. As it shows, there is a huge difference in construction costs between high-rise and ground oriented housing (like stacked townhouse and row-house). Row-houses can be built at half the cost of high-rise units.

This shows only construction costs, so high-rise units get even more costly when you include higher maintenance fees, and other fees that go along with the process.

If Metro Vancouver were actually serious about providing affordable housing, they would be zoning for ground oriented housing on a much larger scale. Instead we are force fed expensive high rise condos. The game is fixed.

https://creston.ca/DocumentCenter/Vi...st-Guide-web-1

As I read that table, if you add the cost of putting the rowhouses on top of an underground parkade, which every developer does, then the costruction costs are very similar for townhouses and condos up to 39 floors.

The land cost per unit for rowhouses in some parts of Metro Vancouver can be higher than for condos as well. It depends partly on what's on the site to be redeveloped, and where it's located. That's why stacked townhouses and rowhouses cost similar per square foot new prices as condos. Their condo fees were a bit lower, but presumably townhouse stratas also face the same issue with higher insurance premiums, so will have rising strata fees.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Those numbers seem very low. Some seem 50-100 dollars psf off.

The more detailed local calculator from Butterfield Development Consultants seems to agree with you.

[GenWhy?]

Yeah that looks much much better.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As I read that table, if you add the cost of putting the rowhouses on top of an underground parkade, which every developer does, then the costruction costs are very similar for townhouses and condos up to 39 floors.

You're wrong there. The 2 developments shown here in Norquay have ground level parking. That's common in Norquay. At 1.2 FSR, you don't need underground parking.

https://earth.google.com/web/@49.239...am12N1BTMmcQAg

Originally Posted by Changing City

The more detailed local calculator from Butterfield Development Consultants seems to agree with you.

Even with that calculator, it is still much cheaper to build townhouses.

[misher]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm going to post the Altus Group’s annual Construction Cost Guide. As it shows, there is a huge difference in construction costs between high-rise and ground oriented housing (like stacked townhouse and row-house). Row-houses can be built at less than half the cost of high-rise units.



This shows only construction costs, so high-rise units get even more costly when you include higher maintenance fees, and other fees that go along with the process.

If Metro Vancouver were actually serious about providing affordable housing, they would be zoning for ground oriented housing on a much larger scale. Instead we are force fed expensive high rise condos. The game is fixed.

https://creston.ca/DocumentCenter/Vi...st-Guide-web-1

High rises have a lot lower maintenance fees per unit. Not sure how it compares per sqft.

Either way high rises definitely have a much lower carbon footprint when located near transit.

Have said this before in other threads, metro van mayors came together and decided that we'd build most density near transit. Its not a fixed game, its an environmentally friendly one. If its not in the red or along the blue don't expect high density or the proliferation of mid density.

What does an Urban Centre look like?
Although each Urban Centres is unique, successful Centres have some common elements:

A diversity of housing types and tenures that respond to an aging population, changing family and household characteristics and the full range of household incomes and needs across the region.
Sufficient office and commercial space ensures that there are jobs and services close to home.
Sustainable transportation options that reduce traffic, energy consumption and air pollution.
A high quality pedestrian environment that promotes walking, cycling and transit, and creates vibrancy.
Ample amenities such as parks, greenways and other recreational opportunities, as well as an abundance of social and cultural activities that create a strong sense of place and community while fostering active and healthy living.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...s/default.aspx