HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2020, 5:06 AM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 5,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeezied View Post
What's this crap logic of your's? Because Burnaby builds tall suburban towers? You remind me of a tall tower fanatic who once told me that a view of tall tower next door is better than a waterfront view or a park view. That God this person isn't on SSP, we don't need crap logic.
I don't think Vin could be any clearer - he wants Vancouver to be as liveable as the world's most liveable city - which on both the Mercer and Economist lists is Vienna.

They score higher on affordable housing infrastructure than Vancouver. This would seem to require Vancouver to have much more control over housing. "According to the municipality, 62 percent of Vienna’s citizens currently live in social housing. Here, rents are regulated and tenants’ rights are strongly protected." [source]

The other thing we'll need to do is to knock all the towers down. Here's the more liveable Vienna. (Their population density is lower than the City of Vancouver too, although that's over a larger area than the city).


[source]
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2020, 7:01 AM
Sheba Sheba is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,291
Admittedly nothing new here - but it's nice to hear it from the outside world.

Quote:
Is It Time To End Neighbourhoods Of Single-Family Homes?

Time to face an ugly reality: Canada is losing the battle to provide affordable housing. Despite a raft of regulations to cool house prices and new programs to build more affordable homes, home prices are now rising faster than incomes once again, and rents are showing no signs of easing.

A recent report from Royal Bank of Canada estimated that Toronto needs to be building twice as many rental units (condos and apartments) to keep up with population growth. All those cranes on the horizon aren’t actually enough.

Unless we want to return to the era of unbridled suburban sprawl, that will mean building more housing in existing urban areas. Sometime soon, when developers run out of post-industrial land next to railyards to build high-rises, we will have to address the fact that the vast majority of residential land in Canada’s metro areas is zoned for single-family homes.

Many U.S. states on the East and West coasts are facing similar problems, and Oregon, for one, has taken a substantial step: It’s passed a law to end neighbourhoods zoned exclusively for single-family homes. Cities with 25,000 or more people will have to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes to be built in all residential areas. California — where the housing shortage has led to an epic homelessness crisis — is now looking at a similar law.

Opponents ― the “not in my backyard” or NIMBY crowd ― say it would mean the end of the suburban lifestyle: The quiet, idyllic nature of suburban neighbourhoods would be replaced by louder, more urban neighbourhoods with heavier traffic.

But supporters of the idea ― the “yes in my backyard” or YIMBY crowd ― say this kind of “gentle densification” would do little to change the character of single-family home areas, while taking serious steps towards more affordable housing and more sustainable cities.

...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2020, 9:26 AM
Tetsuo Tetsuo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,382
I think Virginia is doing something similar inregards to state overiding municipal zoning
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 PM
Vin Vin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
I don't think Vin could be any clearer - he wants Vancouver to be as liveable as the world's most liveable city - which on both the Mercer and Economist lists is Vienna.

They score higher on affordable housing infrastructure than Vancouver. This would seem to require Vancouver to have much more control over housing. "According to the municipality, 62 percent of Vienna’s citizens currently live in social housing. Here, rents are regulated and tenants’ rights are strongly protected." [source]

The other thing we'll need to do is to knock all the towers down. Here's the more liveable Vienna. (Their population density is lower than the City of Vancouver too, although that's over a larger area than the city).


[source]
Exactly, I did say many times before that the Vienna style heights would be acceptable if all of Vancouver is upzoned at the same time, and not just along arterial roads, which have pretty much led to nothing so far. In the meantime, towers do help in increasing densities, while at the same time allowing parklands and other industrial areas to remain.

Many European cities have grown organically over the centuries to their present forms, and the splendid architectural sculpturing of the lower-rise buildings makes this form of housing form appealing over there. For the new world, if we emulate such a concept but instead only put in cookie cutter structures such as those in OV, we would only be successful in creating very depressing and claustrophobic neighbourhoods. Taller towers allow for plazas and other open spaces to be created between the taller towers.

Last edited by Vin; Jan 2, 2020 at 8:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2020, 9:18 PM
squeezied's Avatar
squeezied squeezied is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Exactly, I did say many times before that the Vienna style heights would be acceptable if all of Vancouver is upzoned at the same time, and not just along arterial roads, which have pretty much led to nothing so far. In the meantime, towers do help in increasing densities, while at the same time allowing parklands and other industrial areas to remain.

Many European cities have grown organically over the centuries to their present forms, and the splendid architectural sculpturing of the lower-rise buildings makes this form of housing form appealing over there. For the new world, if we emulate such a concept but instead only put in cookie cutter structures such as those in OV, we would only be successful in creating very depressing and claustrophobic neighbourhoods. Taller towers allow for plazas and other open spaces to be created between the taller towers.
If you truly believe in what you say you should be arguing for better architectural standards instead of height limits. Judging by 95% of your posts complaining about height, I think it's pretty clear what you believe.

You have a flawed logic in equating short = ugly and tall = beautiful. If you think OV = cookie cutter, do yourself a favor and take look at the majority of suburban towers. And please spare me the "if developers can build taller, they make more money which they can then spend on better architecture". A look at some of the tall cookie cutter suburban tower trashes that logic.

If you think density is what makes cities liveable, then consider the fact that the OV is denser than Metrotown.

And yea... OV is definitely depressing and claustrophobic... Oh the irony of someone who lectures others for being melodramatic... I suppose the reason why the OV is bustling full of people is because people want to see what a horrendous neighbourhood it is... My butt doesn't hurt, my eyes hurt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2020, 1:56 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 6,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Exactly, I did say many times before that the Vienna style heights would be acceptable if all of Vancouver is upzoned at the same time, and not just along arterial roads, which have pretty much led to nothing so far. In the meantime, towers do help in increasing densities, while at the same time allowing parklands and other industrial areas to remain.

Many European cities have grown organically over the centuries to their present forms, and the splendid architectural sculpturing of the lower-rise buildings makes this form of housing form appealing over there. For the new world, if we emulate such a concept but instead only put in cookie cutter structures such as those in OV, we would only be successful in creating very depressing and claustrophobic neighbourhoods. Taller towers allow for plazas and other open spaces to be created between the taller towers.
Holy crap, I agree with most of what you are saying!

The problem with towers though is the podiums. They are substantial and the architecture is usually just as bad or a lot worse than what you see at Olympic Village. OV at least has more visual variation, and the narrow streets eliminate the blight of wide roads.

A city wide rezoning is what I talked about last page, so I’m with you there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2020, 2:02 AM
Vin Vin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Holy crap, I agree with most of what you are saying!

The problem with towers though is the podiums. They are substantial and the architecture is usually just as bad or a lot worse than what you see at Olympic Village. OV at least has more visual variation, and the narrow streets eliminate the blight of wide roads.

A city wide rezoning is what I talked about last page, so I’m with you there.
Obviously someone up there is allergic to such a logic, and forever feel offended by it, but never provide the right solution for anything. Glad we're on the same page regarding this, sir!


Quote:
Originally Posted by squeezied View Post
If you think density is what makes cities liveable, then consider the fact that the OV is denser than Metrotown.
:
Not true at all. It has been shown before that it isn't. Do you want me to prove you wrong once again?

If you think that I only subscribe to just tall structures and malls, you should go to the Victoria thread to see what I've been posting there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2020, 2:16 AM
squeezied's Avatar
squeezied squeezied is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Obviously someone up there is allergic to such a logic, and forever feel offended by it, but never provide the right solution for anything. Glad we're on the same page regarding this, sir!




Not true at all. It has been shown before that it isn't. Do you want me to prove you wrong once again?

If you think that I only subscribe to just tall structures and malls, you should go to the Victoria thread to see what I've been posting there.
Address to my points if you believe I am wrong instead of claiming I am wrong. As far as I can tell you're the one with the flawed logic and I've already proved you wrong already. I get a kick from putting arrogant 'know-it-alls' in their place.

I'm not going to waste my time searching the Victoria thread for your posts. If you have something to prove, prove it here.

And btw, you just agreed to the notion that the OV is better than suburban towers+podiums and Vienna-style mid-rise upzoning across the city (ie no towers) is acceptable. Really.... you agree to that? Well if that's the case I think we finally have something in common!

Last edited by squeezied; Jan 3, 2020 at 2:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2020, 3:51 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
A city wide rezoning is what I talked about last page, so I’m with you there.
Already in the works - part of which may include rezoning to allow four-floor rentals on side streets, not just arterials.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2020, 5:55 AM
Feathered Friend Feathered Friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5 View Post
Having an even closer look, the 3 bedroom that is still for sale is listed at 2.7 for a 1400 sq foot unit. Almost 2000 per sq foot.

Not sure how the Broadway Plan will make housing more affordable, especially when it comes to 3 bedroom units, but the City is working on (or is suppose to be) a city wide plan. Up-zoning detached homes to either row-house or duplex on a city wide scale would bring a very large supply of land to market, instead of a few re-zonings here and there.

I believe that's the solution for affordability. Not just Vancouver though. All municipalities need to rezone on a mass scale, then we will have unlocked hundreds of square km's of land. This massive new supply of land would certainly make housing cheaper.
The Broadway Plan is expected to bring changes to zoning guidelines that are several decades old, which should allow more affordable housing, and office space options in an important area of the city.

In Vancouver, city-wide duplex zoning has already been implemented, and the slow uptake proves it's not much more than a baby step. It's also very unlikely City Plan will implement any sweeping changes, but there's still plenty of reasons to remain hopeful about what may spin off from it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2020, 6:24 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 6,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feathered Friend View Post
The Broadway Plan is expected to bring changes to zoning guidelines that are several decades old, which should allow more affordable housing, and office space options in an important area of the city.

In Vancouver, city-wide duplex zoning has already been implemented, and the slow uptake proves it's not much more than a baby step. It's also very unlikely City Plan will implement any sweeping changes, but there's still plenty of reasons to remain hopeful about what may spin off from it.
There’s a slow uptake because they didn’t increase the allowable density. Increasing density is the key to unlocking single detached neighbourhoods. Even FSR 1.2 will spur development in detached areas, as we see in Norquay, where row-house and townhouses are being built. The problem with those housing types is that it can take a long to time to assemble properties. With a duplex, you don’t need to assemble properties, so development would happen at a faster pace. A duplex zone with 1.2 FSR would spur development.

I will be incredibly disappointed if the City spends 2 or 3 years on a city wide plan only to end up rezoning a few token areas. The pressure to densify is already very high, and with increased immigration and population growth, the City absolutely has to make sweeping changes. I think that will finally happen when the city wide plan is complete.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2020, 8:44 PM
Vin Vin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
And the city keeps sliding down the ladder.....

Quote:
Vancouver-based company ranks Vancouver 41st in list of world's best cities
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-base...ties-1.4760870
Quote:
VANCOUVER -- A Vancouver-based consulting company has released a list of the world's best cities, and it ranks its hometown 41st.

Resonance Consultancy describes its list - titled "World's Best Cities 2020" - as "a ranking of global place equity."

To make the list, the company, which has offices in Vancouver and New York City, scored cities on six broad categories, all starting with the letter P: "place," "people," "programming," "product," "prosperity" and "promotion."

On a list of Canada's best places to live, Vancouver isn't even in the top 100

Vancouver performs best in the "people" category, which is based on the diversity and educational attainment of city residents. Vancouver ranks number 6 among all metro areas with a population over a million in this metric, according to Resonance.

Perhaps surprisingly, the city's weakest category is "place," which Resonance says is an evaluation of "the perceived quality of (a city's) natural and built environments." Despite its legendary backdrop of mountains and ocean, Vancouver ranks 159th on this metric.

An explanation for this may be found in the criteria that make up the "place" ranking. Among the considerations Resonance took into account is the average number of sunny days a city experiences. Fellow Pacific Northwest cities Seattle (number 34 overall) and Portland, Ore. (57), rank 154th and 178th, respectively, in the "place" category.

Then again, the number one city on the list - notoriously rainy London, England - ranks 22nd for "place," presumably overcoming its lack of sunshine with highly rated neighbourhoods and landmarks (another element of the "place" category).


Vancouver also ranks outside the top 100 in Resonance's "prosperity" metric, which is based on GDP per capita and the number of Global 500 companies with their corporate headquarters in the city. Vancouver is 113th by this measure.

The city achieves middling scores in the remaining three categories.

It ranks 52nd for "promotion," which measures Facebook check-ins, Google searches, Instagram hashtags and other data about residents and visitors sharing impressions of the city online.

Vancouver places 67th for "product," which measures a city's "hardware," including airport connectivity, universities, museums and attractions.

And, the city ranks 68th for "programming," which measures shopping, dining, nightlife and culture through TripAdvisor reviews.

Vancouver's overall ranking of 41 is good for second place among Canadian cities. Toronto is the highest-ranked, placing 17th overall. Other Canadian cities in the top 100 included Montreal (45th overall), Calgary (48th), Ottawa (77th) and Edmonton (83rd).
Is the low ranking of "Place" (ie, buiilt environment) surprising to anyone here? Certainly not to me!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2020, 10:13 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 3,631
I like how it loosely interchanges the Metro and City-proper classification without care or even awareness.

Also not sure how the whole best cities 2020 works when it's January and I think only their 2019 "tourism report" is out.

Last edited by GenWhy?; Jan 14, 2020 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2020, 2:40 AM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Delete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2020, 5:25 PM
Sheba Sheba is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,291
Vancouver asks residents to weigh in on how to spend $100K in city's West End

Quote:
The city is inviting Vancouverites with ties to the West End to vote on how to spend $100,000 for up to 14 community improvement projects.

The process, which the city calls participatory budgeting, is open to anyone with a strong connection to the downtown neighbourhood — through work, living arrangements or volunteering.

Coun. Pete Fry says it's the first time the city has implemented participatory budgeting, and he's hoping there will be more of it in other neighbourhoods.

"I'm very excited to see this project succeed," Fry said.

"It's a really good opportunity for communities to come forward and say, 'Hey, this is how we'd like to see our community benefit.'"

Voters choose and rank up to four of 14 projects. The projects with the highest number of votes and that fall within the $100,000 budget will be implemented. Fry said money for the budget came from parking revenues.

Some of the projects include a chalk art block party, a pedestrian crossing and increased mental health services.

Voting takes place between Jan. 25 and Feb. 4. People can take part online or in person. Results will be announced Feb. 8 and projects have to be implemented within 18 months.

...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2020, 6:16 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
And the city keeps sliding down the ladder.....


Is the low ranking of "Place" (ie, buiilt environment) surprising to anyone here? Certainly not to me!
The report singled out affordability as the main reason for the low ranking and pointed to this as the cause:

..That’s part of the reason that Vancouver ranked way down the list, at No. 41 out of 100, on the Resonance Consultancy’s annual list of Best Cities, one of the most comprehensive rankings globally because its criteria include not just standard livability statistics such as crime and education, but also economic indicators. Vancouver gets its middling rank because of its high cost of entry.

Always on the lookout for foreign investment, various incarnations of provincial and federal governments made citizenship available to foreigners with sufficient capital, with little oversight on taxing outside funds. As such Vancouver’s housing prices are now mostly hitched to a global context, largely decoupled from local wages,” says the report released earlier this month....


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...s-much-touted/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2020, 8:44 PM
Vin Vin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
The report singled out affordability as the main reason for the low ranking and pointed to this as the cause:

..That’s part of the reason that Vancouver ranked way down the list, at No. 41 out of 100, on the Resonance Consultancy’s annual list of Best Cities, one of the most comprehensive rankings globally because its criteria include not just standard livability statistics such as crime and education, but also economic indicators. Vancouver gets its middling rank because of its high cost of entry.

Always on the lookout for foreign investment, various incarnations of provincial and federal governments made citizenship available to foreigners with sufficient capital, with little oversight on taxing outside funds. As such Vancouver’s housing prices are now mostly hitched to a global context, largely decoupled from local wages,” says the report released earlier this month....


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...s-much-touted/
Yes, that would be one of the reasons too. The lack of affordable housing built in this city is a huge factor why our ranking is so low, among many other things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2020, 7:59 PM
Vin Vin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Not Vienna yet, and in fact far from it, but it's a start.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...reas-arterials

If we want to emulate European cities, such higher densities have to be applied throughout the City. Otherwise, if we want to keep the SFH neighbourhoods, there should be nodes of really tall towers, especially in areas around downtown to make up for the lack of density. The suburb municipalities are going that direction, and the results do show.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2020, 1:52 AM
Sheba Sheba is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,291
Vancouver mayor announces new middle-income home ownership program

Quote:
Vancouver’s mayor is calling for a pilot project that would allow up to six homes on lots zoned for single-family housing, in an effort to provide more home-ownership options for middle-income families.

Kennedy Stewart will ask council this week to direct staff to study how to get 100 pilot projects going in single-detached neighbourhoods across the city starting next year.

He said Monday the new program, called Making Housing Options for Middle Income Earners, could turn a single residential lot, depending on the size, into four or six market homes with one or two for middle-income households earning $80,000.

Speculation on the increased land value from the increased density would be controlled, according to the program, by measures such as a covenant on title.

“Vancouver can become a leader in making housing available for the middle class,” Stewart said at a news conference. “That’s why I’m putting forward a proposal to not only create more choices in single-detached neighbourhoods but to make sure for the first time in a generation those choices include homes permanently set aside for middle-income households earning just $80,000 a year.”

The program would restrict new buildings to about the same height as existing homes and would exclude redevelopment of homes with renters or heritage homes.

“Over time, Vancouver would build an inventory of homes not subject to rising property value and speculation,” he said.

Andy Yan, director of Simon Fraser University’s City Program, said the mayor’s proposal is a “little short of details.”

...

A housing program could have “unintended consequences” and turn into a displacement program if it’s not well thought out, Yan said.

“If this passes, it creates a new floor for a lot of single family homes and duplex properties in the city in terms of land values,” Yan said.

According to the mayor, the high cost of new home ownership in Vancouver means it is restricted to 2.5 per cent of residents. The new program is intended to increase the options for home ownership for 50 per cent of residents.

Technical documents accompanying the mayor’s announcement said “71 per cent of Vancouverites want more home choices in single-detached neighbourhoods.

A total of 57 per cent of land in Vancouver is zoned for single detached homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2020, 1:59 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,105
imagine making 80,000 a year, i think i make less than 20,000 a year now lol
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:22 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.