Should Vancouver build over the 1200 ft development limit?

[fredinno]

Currently, all lands above 1200 feet (the Upper Lands) in West Vancouver are dedicated as land under a 'Special Study Area' by West Vancouver and Metro Vancouver. Theoretically, if 50% of the MVRD Board agrees to the change (and West Vancouver wants it), the Upper Lands could be rezoned for housing. This as been a key sticking point for West Van to both agree to the RGS- this is despite their own studies recommending against the idea. https://westvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/dwv/council-agendas/2015/jun/22/15jun22-5.pdf
Map of the area (the Upper Lands are the massive area in red in West Vancouver):


The reasons for not developing the area are largely environmental, but there's also a significant impact on the views of the NS mountains.
The suburban section could potentially go all the way up to the beginning of Cypress Mountain's plateau peak- or about 800 meters above sea level. (The ski resort is at 1000m) Most of the treed section in the image may be removed if development is allowed up to Cypress Provincial Park.

On the other hand, the amount of land up there is enormous.
But the maximum possible amount of land (including Eagle Lake and any other new potential parks) is about 17.97 sq km or about 4440.5 acres. To put that in perspective, that's larger in area than New Westminster. Additionally, much of it is still owned by the British Properties, making turning the entire thing into a park require a ton of money- if they even want to sell, rather than keep whispering into West Van's ear to develop it. They've been holding for nearly a century at this point.

It would reduce land pressures on the agricultural, rural, and industrial lands in the Fraser Valley- which was actually why some early Vancouver planners wanted to develop up the mountains- to leave the Valley pristine (impossible to do that now, but still, the point stands). If densification can't proceed fast enough (something Vancouver isn't great at), Vancouver is going to inevitably gobble up more of the Valley outside the Containment Boundary. Is sprawling up Stave Lake or Silver Valley that much worse?

It's also important to note the 1200 ft boundary seems to be an unofficial limit for Metro Vancouver as a whole. If the Upper Lands get developed, expect the precedent to change- and other areas above 1200ft outside parks to get developed eventually (like Mount Fromme and parts of Eagle Mountain)


So should the area be developed? Part of it? Or should the area be kept as undeveloped parkland? Is that even likely?

[misher]

I'm usually pro density but it already takes a long time to drive up there filled with a bunch of loops and I feel like West Van lacks a lot of the restaurants and jobs needed to support more people (bridge traffic!). Until we increase infrastructure or shift jobs to West Van more housing in West Van seems problematic.

I would be open to perhaps a vacation/cabin resort or restaurants up there? Something that doesn't screw with traffic.

[whatnext]

West Vancouver has tons of empty homes owned by offshore money. Why would they need more housing when they haven't filled what they already have?

Marketing-wise it would be disastrous for Vancouver's brand to have suburban sprawl climb further up the mountains.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Typical West Van - first they shut down the B-Line over ten parking spaces, now they want to sprawl up Cypress until they reach the ski lift. Note that everything below the treeline is still SFH.

[logan5]

The mountains look nice with trees.

There is enough room on a typical vancouver lot for 2 family sized, ground oriented homes, in the form of row-house. Outside of the CoV, lots are 50 to 60 feet wide, and have an average sized detached home sitting on them. Those huge lots could accommodate 2 detached homes.

There is no reason why we would need to take the drastic measure of developing further up the mountain.

[Galaxy]

Let's improve and densify what we already have rather than extend up further into the mountain only to make a bigger mess. There are so many open surface parking lots that can be developed not to mention spaces that are underutilized or schools with low enrollment that with some gentle density could mean better utilization of existing resources. The idea is just plain

[Migrant_Coconut]

Problem being that West Van residents would prefer to chop trees (or their own arm off) than give up parking or add density.

[djh]

It's ironic that the City of Vancouver wants to preserve viewcones - to emphasize the natural photogenic beauty of the mountains. Yet the North Shore jurisdictions want to build on the thing that makes the region look so photogenic.

Low density buildings on the mountains just means that masses of expensive infrastructure need to be developed for just a handful of people to enjoy. Whether they can afford to pay the taxes or not, it's a waste of resources. I'd rather the sub-1200' areas get densified and communities develop.

[logan5]

Speaking of utilities, isn't there a problem supplying water so high up the mountain?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Typical West Van - first they shut down the B-Line over ten parking spaces, now they want to sprawl up Cypress until they reach the ski lift. Note that everything below the treeline is still SFH.

West Van proposed building on the Upper Levels long before that stuff hit down. West Van NIMBYs (the people who fought against the transit improvements the most) are generally against the idea. I don't think West Van's government is much more anti-development than a lot of others, they're just appealing to their voter base. https://www.straight.com/article-381441/...h-strategy-threatens-north-shore-forests

There's also plans for Cypress Village, a more densified mixed community (most of the units are actually condos, followed by townhouses, and a fairly small number of SFH- so something like you'd find in Willowgbhy) that's supposed to be a 'hub' for the area, so densification in the area seems to be limited by infrastructure and terrain more than willingness on either the part of West Van or the British Properties. http://cypressvillage.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CV-March-Presentation-emailable.pdf

Originally Posted by logan5

Speaking of utilities, isn't there a problem supplying water so high up the mountain?

Presumably the cost would be covered by the British Properties, as with the schools they've built in the current area they're allowed to build on.

If they wanted, they could build a Gondola up to a new T. Center up there and make the developers pay for it as part of the deal. Maybe.

Originally Posted by logan5

The mountains look nice with trees.

There is enough room on a typical vancouver lot for 2 family sized, ground oriented homes, in the form of row-house. Outside of the CoV, lots are 50 to 60 feet wide, and have an average sized detached home sitting on them. Those huge lots could accommodate 2 detached homes.

There is no reason why we would need to take the drastic measure of developing further up the mountain.

Well, considering NIMBYs...

Originally Posted by misher

I'm usually pro density but it already takes a long time to drive up there filled with a bunch of loops and I feel like West Van lacks a lot of the restaurants and jobs needed to support more people (bridge traffic!). Until we increase infrastructure or shift jobs to West Van more housing in West Van seems problematic.

I would be open to perhaps a vacation/cabin resort or restaurants up there? Something that doesn't screw with traffic.

There is mention of adding cabins in the area, since it would fit in with its history. At least that would probably be acceptable for most people, as long as you don't go too overboard.





I also added something to the OP. It would reduce land pressures on the agricultural, rural, and industrial lands in the Fraser Valley- which was actually why some early Vancouver planners wanted to develop up the mountains- to leave the Valley pristine (impossible to do that now, but still, the point stands)

[fredinno]

Is sprawling up the mountains in this case worse than sprawling further into the Valley?

[Vin]

Both are horrible ideas... and both already happened for decades.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Speaking of utilities, isn't there a problem supplying water so high up the mountain?

At certain neighbourhoods they would pump up water to a storage reservoir for usage. But it is a very non efficient way of getting water when so many places can be easily supplied by the current grid.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

Speaking of utilities, isn't there a problem supplying water so high up the mountain?

Most of the water would probably come from Eagle Lake which is either next to or below it.

https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/features/eagle-lake-membrane-filtration-facility/

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Vin

Both are horrible ideas... and both already happened for decades.

Let’s be honest, it’s not going to just stop because we want it to, even with more liberal regulations. There could be another Great Recession and there’d still be a booming RE sector due to backed up demand.

After Willoughby/Clayton/Port Kells, all the prime developable land will be gone, and that’s going to force people who are buying that land into more marginal land, go further into the Valley, or the ALR. Or all of the above. We’re already seeing Industrial land do that, since it has nowhere else left to go.

The only thing that’s stopping a lot of the North Shore and Ioco/Belcarra from being developed is bad road connections.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Most of the water would probably come from Eagle Lake which is either next to or below it.

https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/features/eagle-lake-membrane-filtration-facility/

Doesn’t water have to be pumped up to Eagle Lake first?

[misher]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Let’s be honest, it’s not going to just stop because we want it to, even with more liberal regulations. There could be another Great Recession and there’d still be a booming RE sector due to backed up demand.

After Willoughby/Clayton/Port Kells, all the prime developable land will be gone, and that’s going to force people who are buying that land into more marginal land, go further into the Valley, or the ALR. Or all of the above. We’re already seeing Industrial land do that, since it has nowhere else left to go.

The only thing that’s stopping a lot of the North Shore and Ioco/Belcarra from being developed is bad road connections.

Honestly how can things go down when we keep expanding? It’s insane to expect land values to go down now that Amazon is opening up HQ2 here, 10’s of billions of debt funded projects are about to enrich the pockets of many locals, immigration is at an all time with most stopping in Vancouver, and more schools opening/expanding which will increase international enrollment.

Not to mention on the federal side they are making it easier to take on more debt to buy a home.

Honestly instead of trying to reverse course the government needs to take action now and build rental towers by transit stations for all the working locals. We should aim for 10,000 rentals within a 2 block radius of every skytrain station by 2040.

As you see in most land constrained major cities worldwide towers are the key to allowing people to live and work nearby. In downtown Vancouver a lot of people are able to live without owning a car because food, work, clothing, etc. are all within a few blocks of transit.

Upzoning just pushes more cars on the road unless it’s near a transit station.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by misher

Honestly how can things go down when we keep expanding? It’s insane to expect land values to go down now that Amazon is opening up HQ2 here, 10’s of billions of debt funded projects are about to enrich the pockets of many locals, immigration is at an all time with most stopping in Vancouver, and more schools opening/expanding which will increase international enrollment.

Not to mention on the federal side they are making it easier to take on more debt to buy a home.

Honestly instead of trying to reverse course the government needs to take action now and build rental towers by transit stations for all the working locals. We should aim for 10,000 rentals within a 2 block radius of every skytrain station by 2040.

As you see in most land constrained major cities worldwide towers are the key to allowing people to live and work nearby. In downtown Vancouver a lot of people are able to live without owning a car because food, work, clothing, etc. are all within a few blocks of transit.

Upzoning just pushes more cars on the road unless it’s near a transit station.

I mean, TOD in the Upper Levels is harder, but not impossible. The area past 800m is a flattish plateau, which should allow for a grid bus structure, connected to a gondola connecting to Ambleside.

Most of the areas not under either the ALR and not being developed are pretty far from any services to begin with (like Silver Valley and Stave Lake). My question is whether developing those places are worse than the Upper Levels. I guess from a Transportation perspective- but it’s still horrible in Stave Lake. Upper Levels is closer to Vancouver and existing services.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Doesn’t water have to be pumped up to Eagle Lake first?

No it's filtered there it doesn't come from another dam.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean, TOD in the Upper Levels is harder, but not impossible. The area past 800m is a flattish plateau, which should allow for a grid bus structure, connected to a gondola connecting to Ambleside.

Most of the areas not under either the ALR and not being developed are pretty far from any services to begin with (like Silver Valley and Stave Lake). My question is whether developing those places are worse than the Upper Levels. I guess from a Transportation perspective- but it’s still horrible in Stave Lake. Upper Levels is closer to Vancouver and existing services.

Question is, why stretch West Van bus service even thinner than it already is, when the Hollyburn/Cedardale/Dunderave area (with existing upgradeable bus routes) would suit the same kind of lowrises and townhomes just fine?

I think we all know the answer, but it's worth asking anyway.