59 responses so far ↓

• 1 Joe Just Joe // Feb 7, 2012 at 10:32 pm

  Congrats to Michael Geller. As I posted in the other thread I personally don’t have high hopes that the affordability task force will be able to create affordability.
  Knowing that Michael is leading a working group I’m less nervous that it will create more harm then good. There are several good people on the task force and I’m now hopefully that there will be good that comes out of it. Let me know how I can help.

• 2 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 7, 2012 at 11:28 pm

  Here’s a poser… The reason I was never interested in Laneway Housing is that it erects buildings 30-feet apart from each other.

  That means that your neighbour’s window is 30-feet away from yours (10 meters). Our lanes in Vancouver are 20-feet wide. Our streets are 66-feet wide.

  However, with prescribed setbacks, houses fronting across a 66-foot right-of-way are about 120-feet removed from each other. Around back, when you take into account the rear yard set back, it turns out that houses are 120-feet apart from one another.

  Eco density—what some have dubbed Hen-City—as represented by Laneway Housing, perpetrates characteristics in urban design that friends of mine living those conditions have characterized as “indecent”.

  Then, there is the “overheated” housing market—in the economics sense of the word.

  Hard to imagine what a Task Force can bring to the table. Times are hard. Very difficult for local government to make it better.

• 3 Kirk // Feb 7, 2012 at 11:53 pm

  It’s a very difficult task. My guess is that they’ll suggest density. But, ironically, it seems like the densest cities (ie Vancouver, New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong) are the least affordable. It’s the sprawl cities that are cheap. After many years, we’ve come to realize that we can’t build our way out of traffic congestion. It seems we can’t densify our way to affordability either. It’s almost like there’s only two models: “dense, livable, and expensive” or “sprawled, car-dependent, and affordable”. Hopefully, they’ll find some new solutions.

• 4 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 8, 2012 at 12:03 am

  It’s almost like there’s only two models: “dense, livable, and expensive” or “sprawled, car-dependent, and affordable”. Hopefully, they’ll find some new solutions.

  Kirk 3

  “Dense, Livable, and Expensive”—I think you got it right, Kirk—sounds like Skytrain and Towers.

  “Sprawling, carbon dependant, and affordable”—NOT! Have you checked the price of housing in say, Coquitlam, lately?—sounds like suburban sprawl in need of re-development.

  We are really in a muddle here. And it is hard to imagine that either the “establishment” or the “white hairs” (myself at least 50% part of that club) are really going to give up the old habits, and get it anywhere near right.

  Fire the Dop and hire a Task Force…. Paper Dragons…

• 5 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 8, 2012 at 12:04 am

  CORRECTION:

  Fire the DoP…

• 6 CityHallWatch Randy // Feb 8, 2012 at 12:27 am

  I would like to see the Task Force present an honest and concise determinant analysis of factors affecting housing prices — something that is academically respectable and can show us the real options. The determinants could then be ranked to show clearly who or what players or factors influence them. Of great interest in Vancouver would be a better understanding of the power/capacity of the civic government to affect each determinant.

• 7 Richard // Feb 8, 2012 at 12:47 am

  The key is to focus on overall affordability of living in a city and not just the price of housing. The problem with many of the sprawling cities with the cheap housing out in the middle of nowhere is that the cost of transportation is very high.

  Seems like the threshold for affordability is regarding as 45% of income spent on transportation + housing.

  There are a few web sites on this in the states. Not so much for Canada surprisingly. Just google transportation + housing affordability. Gordon Price also has brought this up on his blog.

  When a household can give up a car or two, that is around a $10,000 per car per year less they have to spend. Add a couple of thousand per year for transit, car sharing or bikes and they still come out ahead.

  From http://www.vtpi.org/affordability.pdf
  Interesting to note that transportation expenditures rose dramatically during last century from 3.1% of household expenditures in 1917 to 25.7% in 1986. Housing climbed from 26.8% to 33.7% although I expect that is mainly because food went from 41.1% to 19.4%. Still, it doesn’t look like spending more on transportation decreased the cost of housing. Probably just increased people’s expectations of what kind of house they could afford.

  So, some of the affordability issue can be addressed by improving lower cost transportation options like walking, cycling and transit which the city, region and province want to do anyway. This would be a good reason to speed up those investments. Moving transportation funding away from property taxes would be a good idea as well.

  @Lewis N. Villegas
  People have lived for centuries in very close quarters in cities. Look at the narrow streets of Europe for example. No reason why we can’t do it today. Matter of fact, I am doing it today. I have people’s windows just across an alley. No big deal.

• 8 Andrea C. // Feb 8, 2012 at 3:38 am

  “…Olga Ilich, a former BC cabinet minister with extensive experience in the real estate sector…”

  Oh, you could say that again:

  http://scc.lexum.org/en/1990/1990scr3-1213/1990scr3-1213.html

• 9 Roger Kemble // Feb 8, 2012 at 6:15 am

  Who pays for lunch?

• 10 Diderotto // Feb 8, 2012 at 7:01 am

  @Andrea C., you do a great service to democracy.
  I predict that they will recommend densification, focussing on publicly owned lands, they will also wade into a territory not necessarily ‘theirs’ – they will advoacte policy change regarding discretionary rezoning. This will benefit developers but will also result in a diminishment of the City’s ability to serve the added population brought by that densification with the level of public spaces we now have. Quality of life will suffer, Vancouver will become less attractive, so eventually housing prices will fall as a result. Bingo! success.

• 11 jesse // Feb 8, 2012 at 7:10 am

  It’s hard to know if the recommendations will translate to much on the zoning side.

• 12 Silly Season // Feb 8, 2012 at 10:18 am

  Happy to see @Michael Geller leading a working group.

  Michael, I don’t know what the paramenters are for your particular group.

  But it would be fascinating and helpful to see some physical representations of what we are talking about. Otherwise it’s all just words, words, words.

  How about introducing a couple of the charettes, or graphical representation that I understand urban studies students at UBC/SFU have probably/possibly put together, to give us a taste of what is possible?

• 13 Frank Ducote // Feb 8, 2012 at 10:31 am

  Frances – who else will be working with Geller? It appears that his group will be charged with the important questions about “what” affordable types of housing are, for “whom” they should be provided and possibly “where” affordable housing should go, while the Mayor’s task force focuses on mechansims, or “how” to produce such housing in Vancouver.

  I hope this discussion focuses on the needs of the vanishing middle class in this city, as well as younger people entering the work force.

  Alan Boniface, as an architect, would also have been a good fit with the Geller group what, where and for whom committee, as it will address the really ticklish physical design questions that consume us. However, I’m happy that he’s there to add flesh and bones to the discussion in any event.

• 14 Chris Keam // Feb 8, 2012 at 11:12 am

  Am I being churlish in feeling that there’s very little representation in the task force from the very people impacted by lack of affordability? Being able to present to the panel isn’t the same as being a part of the decision-making.

• 15 MB // Feb 8, 2012 at 11:27 am

  @ Andrea C #7 and Diderotto #9

  It’s so reassuring to see someone demonstrate an elementary skill with Google, and to see one leap to a predrawn conclusion that the Developers of Mass Destruction will get their way before the meeting room has even been booked.

  Now how about expanding your sightlines by a half degree or so and post the CVs of a few others on the task force (yes, they’re readily found with Google), like, oh say Leonard George, Howard Johnson, Kenneth Kwan, and Karen O’Shannacery.

  Here’s a sneak peak of what you’ll find on their backgrounds:

  - social and economic well being of aboriginals
  - establishing a community land trust outside of private ownership
  - senior’s housing
  - organizing to provide homes for the homeless
  - providing services for new immigrants

  C’mon, let’s see what you’re able to come up with that proves your implication that the task force is somehow unbalanced.

• 16 MB // Feb 8, 2012 at 11:34 am

  On the other hand, reaching a conclusion that not much will be discovered that will result in bringing the price of land down in Vancouver is practically assured.

  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at ways of living more efficiently on expensive private land.

  Using non-park public land for affordable leaseholds may be another way to make a difference. Construction costs can be controlled in average market conditions, and if the cost of the land was controlled through reasonable long-term leases, then perhaps this could be one of the best ways to supply more affordable market housing without resorting to subsidies.

• 17 F.H.Leghorn // Feb 8, 2012 at 2:47 pm

  It’s touching to see so much faith placed in what really is nothing more than a buck-passing PR campaign from Vision. All the people on the task force have been talking to each other and the city for years. Believeing that they will come up with some new idea that as not yet been considered is far-fetched, to say the least.
  Just this morning the Mayor, as chair of the FCM has pointed the finger at the federal government and called for new program spending (already nixed by MinFin Flaherty). This provides the groundwork for the tired old alibi that “We’d like to provide affordable housing, but Ottawa refuses to co-operate”. Again, the buck passes.

• 18 Frank Ducote // Feb 8, 2012 at 4:20 pm

  Leghorn@17 – far from passing the buck, I think the buck does stop with higher levels of goverment. It’s hard to believe you’d think there is no role for senior governments in providing socially necessary infrastructure like housing.

  I think many people would agree that most approaches to housing affordability in this country in recent decades involved provincial and federal participation (through CHMC), either directly as a partner or at the very least with positive tax incentives. MURBs, co-ops and othe examples abound. It is no coincidence that since these programs were eliminated by the Chretien government that the housing affordability crunch grew exponentially.

  Indeed, without support from higher levels of government, all the pressure falls on local governments, who only have planning and zoning tools available to them, and no financial capability to speak of, other than to write down the value of city-owned land, which will probably be on the table in any event.

  In a related example, and in the absence of other financial support or tax breaks, we see the problems generated by the STIR program which gives significant density bonuses to produce market rental housing, and eliminates normal development costs at the same time. With the net result of the local impacts we have heard about in, say, the West End.

• 19 F.H.Leghorn // Feb 8, 2012 at 5:39 pm

  @Frank 18: No-one (least of all me) claimed that the federal government should subsidize my purchase of a single-family home on the west side. Why then should my hard-earned taxes go to “provide socially necessary” houses to the poor? Let them go and live where housing is cheap.
  The federal govenment has far more inportant things to spend the money on, for example: state-of-the-art fighter aircraft to defend Canadians against…well, somebody. Or hugely expensive warships to defend us against, um, the Chinese, or climate refugees or, uh, alien invasion. Nobody will have a house to live in if Iran drops an atomic bomb on the local hockey arena.

• 20 Frank Ducote // Feb 8, 2012 at 6:02 pm

  Leghorn – almost all single – family homes were or are subsidized by the public one way o r another, especially those in outlying areas but also here in the city. All taxpayers, homeowners or not, paid for those lovely, leafy streets, sewers, parks and schools that you enjoy and presumably want to not change.

  Aggressive Federal highway programs, low interest loans, school building, etc., etc. stimulated suburban development in postwar decades, and who pays for that? The subsidies may be hidden but they’re still there.

• 21 Bill McCreery // Feb 8, 2012 at 10:04 pm

  I agree Frank, the car and suburbia area creation of subsidies all levels of government have provided over the past 60 years. But, we need to take a closer look at your observation that:

  “It is no coincidence that since these programs were eliminated by the Chretien government that the housing affordability crunch grew exponentially.”

  As one who went through that period of housing subsidies that started +/-1970 (start of ARPs – assisted rental plan) to 1981 (cancelation of MURBs – multiple unit residential buildings) and co-ops, I have some perspective on this history.

  The Federal Government realized in the 80s that they couldn’t continue the free spending, and resulting deficits of the Trudeau era that had created what was fast becoming an unstoppable debt (read Greece, Italy, and eventually in the not to distant future, the US). A large part of the national debt was a consequence of having to pay for the subsidies of the rental housing built in the 70′s and 80s.

  An old navy colleague, David Dodge was Paul Martin’s Deputy Minister of Finance under Chretien, and was part of the decision-making at the time. They were the architects of many of the difficult cutbacks. Un-repayable levels of debt, not unlike the +2.0ºC. level of climate change, has its own point of no return.

  We seem to have so far averted repeating the Greek model. However, although the federal government may be able to find some ways to help cities with ‘affordable’ housing (don’t forget, what’s good for one is good for all — across the country), don’t hold your breath for a MURB II.

  This brings this train of thought to another unsettling point. If there are no Federal or Provincial subsidies, then what? Given Vision’s overly ambitious, and IMO not properly thought through, and therefore, irresponsible promise to build 4 to 5,000 units of ‘affordable’ housing in each year of the next 8 to 10 years, how are they going to be able to come anywhere even close to accomplishing this?

  If one crunches a few numbers and visualizes their consequences on neighbourhoods, the private housing market, the Property Endowment Fund (Vision Vancouver’s new piggy bank), among other considerations, the outcomes are really quite scary. Vancouver’s enviable reputation as one of the most liveable and financially stable cities is about to go down in flames.

  If those appointed by the Mayor and co. take their jobs seriously and bring the above factors into their thinking, it will be very interesting to watch the political shenanigans over the next year. If they do not, the ensuing 2 to 10 years are bound to be controversial and the results unsavoury.

  One thing I’ve learned over time is that when one begins with incorrect or false premises, it is impossible to arrive at a valid, inspired, mature solution that makes a longterm positive contribution to either the immediate problem being addressed or its urban context. That is what’s happening here.

• 22 Michael Geller // Feb 8, 2012 at 10:44 pm

  To those of you who welcome my involvement, and express cautious support for the Task Force, thank you.

  There is no doubt that addressing housing affordability is a major challenge in Vancouver. However, as one of the Task Force members said to me today, we are approaching a ‘perfect storm’ which might result in solutions that have been discussed in the past, but never implemented, to be put forward by the Task Force and tested out.

  For my part, I intend to be quite focussed on building design, form and zoning matters that are obstacles to more affordable housing. I am seeking input from architects, engineers , developers and contractors who have had direct experience with the City of Vancouver, and other surrounding municipalities.

  I am particularly interested in zoning, building code, and development approval procedures that may unecessarily add to the cost of housing.

  These might include such things as parking requirements, and how parking is treated in FSR calculations…thus forcing designers into more expensive underground parking solutions, when alternative designs might be preferable.

  I am also interested in whether there are obstacles to including legalized secondary suites in row housing, something I have seen built in other Canadian cities.

  I also want to explore why the idea of a ‘suite within a suite’; a sort of mortgage helper within a condominium, has not been built in Vancouver, even though permitted by the zoning.

  I would also like to again tackle the obstacles to building ‘fee simple’ row housing. While I have often blamed the Vancouver Law Department in the past, it may be that the Law Department’s cautious approach is warranted, and a provincial legislative change is the way to go.

  I also want to explore how we might encourage/facilitate smaller, well designed homes. Many of us grew up in three bedroom ‘starter homes’ under 1000 sq ft with one bathroom. However, we haven’t built this type of housing for sale in Vancouver for more than 50 years! Maybe it’s time to start again.

  Similarly, while many people lament Vancouver’s small apartments, in other cities even smaller apartments provide very good rental and ownership homes. While not for everybody, maybe some people would like the opportunity to rent or buy a very small, well designed home in Vancouver.

  So I hope this gives you a clue to what I am thinking. Let me conclude by saying that I agree with those who advocate for ‘on the ground’ demonstrations of new ideas, so that we can see what is being proposed and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a new idea, before it becomes widespread …sometimes with unintended consequences.

  From 1979 to 1981, I was the Director of the CMHC Research and Demonstration Group in Ottawa. During this time we tried out a number of new ideas related to more affordable housing design. Some failed, but others were successful and subsequently applied in communities across Canada. I think now is a good time to try out new ideas, especially those which arfe variations from how we have always done things in the past.

  I welcome suggestions from Fabula readers. You can send them to geller@sfu.ca

• 23 brilliant // Feb 8, 2012 at 11:56 pm

  As Tsur Sommerville from UBC pointed out on one of the rsdio stations today, the single family home is what most people want and aspire to.

  I find it fascinating that there seems to be such a preponderance of single guys living in or near downtown who are hellbent on telling everybody how awful such a desire is and how everyone should be happy squishing into a tiny urban apartment.

• 24 MB // Feb 9, 2012 at 10:32 am

  @ brilliant, my problem with your thesis is simple math.

  Single family homes on a standard Vancouver lot occupies 374 square metres of land. If 100,000 people aspire to live in them, then it becomes a 9,200 acre challenge.

  If this was Calgary or Atlanta, the path of least resistance would be to consume vast tracts of agricultural land at the periphery with huge, very low density subdivisions. Here, unfortunately — or fortunately, depending on your view — one runs into the ocean, mountainsides or farmland protected with legislation.

  We are not Calgary or Atlanta, therefore the solutions have to be more creative and look forward at least 40 years when a million more people will have arrived.

• 25 rf // Feb 9, 2012 at 10:32 am

  Regardless of the academic praise of the ALR’s existence, it will always be a mystery how it can not be a major attributor to the overvaluation of land and hence housing.

  Branding of things like the 100 mile diet have made this so blurry to some.

  Does it really make any sense that everyone pays an extra $300,000 per lot just so that we can grow cranberries and and few truck loads of local vegetables?

  When you see the brand new 8,000 sq ft showhomes scattered amongst the acerages from Richmond to White rock on Highway 10 and 99, it seems quite obvious that the only people it’s working for are the farmers (yet the cry poverty when their potato crop gets ruined 1 out of 20 years).

  If we built houses on the urban ALR, individuals could decide for themselves if they want a garden to indulge on 100 mile diets and other eco-propaganda.

• 26 MB // Feb 9, 2012 at 11:20 am

  @ Michael Geller

  Thank you for your ideas and involvement in the task force. My only request is that the group look into the impact of an increasingly expensive land base as well as zoning and structures. Can the value of the land be isolated?

  Community land trusts may offer hope through stable leaseholds, therein relieving a lot of pressure on jacked up housing prices resulting from already-jacked land prices. The issues would then revolve around: Who owns the land, and do you trust them?

  Residents of South False Creek were taken aback by the steep rate increases of renewed leases on city-owned lands not too long ago. Leaseholders on Musqueam lands also experienced a similar controversy. I’m not sure how they were resolved, or if the resolutions were satisfactory to both lease holders and owners, but it strikes me that either the original leases weren’t indexed to inflation, thus revenue became extraordinarily low over time, or the owners took advantage of the leaseholders. I feel that leasing land would otherwise be very attractive to homebuyers if the policies and rates were structurally stable and reasonable.

  Years ago there were rumblings about developing the Jericho Lands. My understanding is that the Musqueam rightfully exercised their prerogative under the Constitution and proceeded with the broadcasted intent to claim this piece of public land, which scared the feds who possess the title. This seems a little too kneejerk and awkward to me – “us” and “them” – and shutting it down may have prevented a discussion around how to realitically manage the land. That discussion is exceedingly important now that affordability has become an issue. The fact is, both the dominant society and the Musqueam have lived side-by-side peacefully for over a century, and both have benefitted from land development, and both have land.

  Perhaps the Musqueam would agree to joint ownership of Jericho if the feds bore the cost of developing the land, with both parties splitting the revenue, the feds using their share to recover the cost of development, the Musqueam accepting their share under the right of land title, which was never historically extinguished. The city could append the roads and utilities to the existing network with maintenance and replacement costs borne through the leases in lieu of, or in combination with, property taxes on the structures. If the feds balk at the costs of developing these lands, then perhaps they can share it with the city in exchange for a lesser lease income revenue (the city gets a share).

  In all cases, very high quality urban design standards, energy conservation and public consultation should be mandated.

  Joint partners — and housing that is more affordable by taking the land value out of private mortgages and stretching them over the length of long–term indexed leases starting with very reasonable base rates. This seems like a win-win-win to me on that particular site, and could become a model for better co-operation and economic partnerships with First Nations elsewhere.

• 27 MB // Feb 9, 2012 at 11:29 am

  @rf #25: “Does it really make any sense that everyone pays an extra $300,000 per lot just so that we can grow cranberries and and few truck loads of local vegetables? …When you see the brand new 8,000 sq ft showhomes scattered amongst the acerages from Richmond to White rock on Highway 10 and 99, it seems quite obvious that the only people it’s working for are the farmers (yet the cry poverty when their potato crop gets ruined 1 out of 20 years)….If we built houses on the urban ALR, individuals could decide for themselves if they want a garden to indulge on 100 mile diets and other eco-propaganda.”

  All good points, rf, until we get to the eco-propaganda bit.

  And your view, while valid for the present day may not apply to the situation 40 years from now (the ALR was created 40 years ago …).

  Consider the water, energy and climate challenges facing California and Mexico over that time. Dissecting the ALR today for a gold rush of subsidized 5,000+ sf lots and plastic monster houses may well be disasterous to our security (food + energy) in future.

• 28 MB // Feb 9, 2012 at 11:48 am

  @ Frank #18, we must, of course, distinguish between affordable market housing and publicly subsidized housing.

  Affordability cannot be left just to senior governments to resolve, as their record on social housing since the 90s bears out.

• 29 MB // Feb 9, 2012 at 11:52 am

  @ Bill #21, we musn’t let our memory become too selective. Mulroney had the largest consecutive annual deficits in Canadian history outside of WWI and WWII. And Harper started his tenure with a $13B surplus left by the liberals, though I do agree Chretien / Martin cut too far. But look where we’re at now.

  Otherwise, excellent comments.

• 30 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 9, 2012 at 12:04 pm

  Hi Michael,

  Great to hear your ideas. Row houses should be built in Vancouver. Here’s the prototype that we have developed for the Historic Quartiers:

  http://wp.me/p1mj4z-oJ

  I haven’t had a chance to read carefully Frank & Bill’s comments, will do & reply.

  However, based on personal experience, our 1970′s MURB building—while not a ‘leaky condo’—is an exercise in bad construction, and short-cuts by the builder in what I can only guess was an effort to bring it in on budget.

  Tasking at the Scale of the Quartier

  To be successful, I suggest the Task Force is going to have to re-evaluate what we mean by ‘urban design’ in our community.

  To understand why there is plenty of zoned density in our neighbourhoods but not enough build out, it requires analysis at the scale of the urban whole, not just zoning, regulations, processing fees, etc.

  Tasking Transit

  I will also be so bold as to say that the Task Force will not do the work that needs to be done unless it considers a transit network that has yet to be contemplated, much less planned. Without identifying land lying in the catchment of fast & efficient transit, the affordability of housing takes a devastating hit.

  Furthermore, if that mode is Skytrain, then the number of stations is reduced, and the competition will drive up the price of land.

  Tasking Livability of the Arterials

  Finally, before I cede the soap box, I would suggest that the assessing livability of our arterials and prescribing their revitalization to workable levels—since these are the most readily available source of land for redevelopment—should be part of the discussion.

  It is not just the livability of the public realm that is at stake, but also its suitability to support social functioning.

• 31 Michael Geller // Feb 9, 2012 at 12:14 pm

  MB, your observations regarding the opportunities afforded by leased land are very valid.

  While my Working Group will be focussing on form, rather than financing, I expect the Task Force to carefully look at various types of leases that might be offered, especially related to City owned, or other public/institutional lands.

  In the case of the South Shore False Creek, various lease options were offered, since this was the first time condominiums were developed on leased land in Canada. As I recall, one option allowed for some prepayment, one established a fixed schedule of payments, and one was tied to the CPI for a period of 30 years. After 30 years, some of the rents were recalculated based on the then market value.

  The Musqueum leases were based on the value of land when the homes were first built, on the understanding that they would be recalculated at market after a period of time. While residents enjoyed lower lease payments for decades, they had a shock when the lease payments increased dramatically.

  I have always been fascinated by the idea of a Graduated Payment Lease (GPM) that sets out a fixed schedule of lease payments over time…say 60 or 99 years…with the payments in the initial years being lower than what they might otherwise be, on the understanding that in later years and ‘shortfalls’ are gradulally made up.

  This is a good way to better reflect the reality that notwithstanding some ups and downs, over the long term, land usually goes up in value. More importantly, it is a way to reduce the monthly/annual housing costs for a new home buyer, or renter, when they most need assistance.

  In the case of City land, it is a good way to achieve fair market value over time, (or indeed more than fair market value) while helping to lower the cost of housing in the initial years for those prepared to pay monthly/annual lease payments, rather than pre-pay the lease.

  Another creative lease arrangement might offer lower lease payments in return for a ‘shared equity’ by the landlord and a sharing of the ‘profit’ that a homeowner might achieve upon sale. A variation of this form of ‘shared equity’ is being used in Calgary and in many other locations.

• 32 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 9, 2012 at 12:24 pm

  Bill, two points.

  First, on Greece… I am still in shock, one year later, by the City Manager’s report on the origin of our homeless. The percentages were staggering. Almost all of our homeless population were released from either provincial or federal care.

  While on the one hand, it is still you and I and everyone else that pays taxes to each of the three levels of government, there is something about keeping a case file open, and not dumping it on the DTES that is missing from this unfortunate series of facts.

  Second, on politics… mine, yours, Michael’s and everyone else’s. We have to find our way out of this problem with a consensus solution that reaches across party lines.

  We need common ground.

• 33 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 9, 2012 at 12:43 pm

  Frank,

  I am suspicious of government involvement in ‘tweaking’ the economy to create social housing.

  Yet, we are borrowing each other’s words like before when you talk about building housing to end homelessness as “providing social infrastructure”. A minor tweak: there are regional dimensions to the issue.

  We end homelessness when we build housing. I believe we are all ready to see that happen, but we are just not sure about the numbers. Our analysis here:

  http://wp.me/p1mj4z-yX

  Conclusion: it will cost our society a great deal to provide social housing with supports. However, it costs us even more not to do it.

• 34 MB // Feb 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm

  @ Michael 31

  Thank you for articulating the lease issue options.

  Very informative indeed.

• 35 Kirk // Feb 9, 2012 at 1:14 pm

  Will the task force look into building costs? In many parts of Canada and the US, $200k will get you a brand new house with land. In Vancouver, $200k will get you a lane way garage with a room on top, and YOU HAVE TO SUPPLY THE LAND. How do other cities build for so cheap? Do builders here have much higher profit margins compared to other cities? Is that information available?

  I know Arizona got hit hard, but even if these prices doubled, they’d still be cheap:
  http://www.kbhome.com

• 36 Michael Geller // Feb 9, 2012 at 1:33 pm

  Correction! I’ve been advised by a Vancouver City Planner that at least one multi-family project incorporating ‘lock-off suites’ has been completed. I’ll be curious to see if it was done under the revised zoning provisions, or whether it was done under a comprehensive rezoning.

  In Burnaby, developers have been reluctant to build the 260 sq.ft. lock-off suites since the Building Department requires separate electrical panels, additional fire-separations, etc. etc. By the time you add up all the additional costs, it becomes of questionable value. This is the sort of thing I hope to examine with the Working Group.

• 37 Frank Ducote // Feb 9, 2012 at 3:34 pm

  Brilliant@23 – who’s telling anybody how and where to live? Not this not single guy, FYI, even though I do live downtown. And as do a number of my younger neighbours, both renters and owners, and with and without children.

  All my posting was pointing out is that nobody should be ignorant of the role of government (all of us) in creating conditions that either support or adversely impact their ability to buy or rent a residence.

  Even those people fortunate enough to afford a single-family house shouldn’t have any delusions about the kind and level of support they and their neighbourhoods have received from society at large, through government policies and spending

  Yes, Lewis, social infrastructure is a good term for housing in the broadest possible sense. I’d dearly love to see a strictly market resonse to this issue but if STIR is any example, I’m not sure we’d enjoy the results. So I fall back on the supposition that federal and provincial investment, tax policies and the like may be an important part of the equation to provide answers to the conundrum of housing middle class and young entry-level workers who wish to live in this city. (And who would be needed to staff all those green jobs we’re hearing about.)

  Bill Mc@21 – I defer to your more in-depth knowledge about that critical period in Canada’s housing history. Any remedies that don’t throw the baby out with the bath water?

• 38 rf // Feb 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm

  I firmly believe that any long term water concerns can be solved with desalination infrastructure.
  They already do it in the middle east.

  We’re already spending money to solve the long term energy demands with alternatives (nuclear, solar, wind, etc..).

  According to International Desalination Association 2009, there are 14,451 desalination plants in operation worldwide, producing 59.9 million cubic meters per day (15.8 billion gallons a day), a year on year increase of 12.3%–wikipedia

• 39 Bill Lee // Feb 9, 2012 at 5:23 pm

  I see the Michael Howell over at Glacier Media’s “Vancouver Courier” has dug up a reference to a cycle of Groundhog Days on housing studies by Mr. Peter Simpson.
  http://blogs.canada.com/2012/02/09/peter-simpsons-lovehate-relationship-with-mayor-gregor-robertsons-housing-affordability-task-force/

  Howell says :
  quote:
  But how about this perspective from Peter Simpson, the president and chief executive officer of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association:
  [ and then he is quoting Mr. Simpson ]
  “Although I applaud the mayor’s commitment to addressing this critical issue, I can’t help but reflect on the 1993 movie, Groundhog Day, in which comedian Bill Murray’s character, a frustrated weatherman, wakes up each morning to find he is repeating the same day over and over again.”

  Housing affordability has been studied over and over again, says Simpson, adding that “eminently qualified commentators—brilliant scholars, industry leaders, respected think tank organizations—have all contributed thought provoking data.”

  The people, he adds, who served on previous housing affordability panels, task forces, forums and workshops would occupy all available seats in Rogers Arena, maybe B.C. Place Stadium.

  “And I wonder how many reports filled with reasonable recommendations related to market housing, rental housing and homelessness are piled on shelves, never to see the light of day,” he went on. “The people who contributed much time and resources to those reports should feel choked by this dead end outcome.” [ End Simpson quote ]

  Go and read the whole thing.

  As for Michael Geller, I can’t see any ( [less than ] <$62,000 family income) affordabilty in the projects he has shepherded through.
  I'm sure that the residents of Steveston still curse his name for the the BC Packers ticky-tack.

• 40 Michael Phillips // Feb 9, 2012 at 9:00 pm

  I’m not sure what the tremendous rush is with this Task Force. Why do they need to provide an interim report by March 12th of this year, that’s only a bloody month away? How many times is a group as illustrious as this one going to be able to meet before producing this interim report? Once? That won’t be a report, it’ll be the meeting minutes. Why have the public debate a report for 3 months that only took one month to write in the first place?

  And the whole thing will be done by June. As the Mayor said in the press release “This is not a simple challenge”, so what’s the rush? It’s not like land-use reform is simple. It seems like this has a bit too much of that “First Hundred Days” urgency to it, they should take the time and make it count.

• 41 Bill McCreery // Feb 9, 2012 at 9:26 pm

  @ Frank 37. “Any remedies that don’t throw the baby out with the bath water?”

  Not at the Federal or Provincial level unless they are prepared to increase taxes. Subsidizing rental housing has a cost, and that cost must be met by taxpayers in the end.

  These decisions are driven by the priorities and values of a society at a given point in time. In the 70′s & 80′s our governments priorities were to subsidize. Today Federally and Provincially they are not, at this point. The Conservatives are not likely to budge, but the NDP may do something for their Vision Vancouver friends, assuming they’re elected next year.

  I have some ideas as to how the City can accomplish at least some of its goals, but I’d like to see what they come up with for the time being.

• 42 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 10, 2012 at 7:12 am

  I fall back on the supposition that federal and provincial investment, tax policies and the like may be an important part of the equation to provide answers to the conundrum of housing middle class and young entry-level workers who wish to live in this city. (And who would be needed to staff all those green jobs we’re hearing about.)

  Ducote 37

  There is the 1/3 market; 1/3 affordable; 1/3 non-market model of looking at housing. The question arises: what population do we apply that to?

  We had Vancouver population at 600 or 630k, and Metro at 2.4 million population. Makes a difference where you apply the formula.

  Then, there are our Vancouver Historic Quartiers findings that we can add 15,500 units in the historic Old East End through incremental infill. We calculate that as housing for 35,000, bringing the total population in the Quartiers to 55,000.

  Of course, it makes a great difference which population you care to pick.

  If we start at Metro, we are looking for 800,000 non-market and 800,000 affordable. What do we mean? If we had fast and reliable transit to Chilliwack, for example, can we count single family houses there as affordable vs. single family in, say, Marpole?

  I don’t know numbers for non-market houses at the Metro level, and my impression is that the homeless population concentrates in Vancouver, in part because of the concentration of services here, but also because of the pull of the street scene in the so-called DTES.

  If we think of it as city-wide, then there is something like 200 to 210,000 affordable and 210,000 non-market units required. In the former, I would include co-op, which I am told requires senior level intervention, which stopped sometime in the 1980′s. Do I have that right Bill?

  There are also all of Geller’s wonderful ruminations about a British-style lease-hold system that was used in south False Creek (that, BTW was a version of New Paradigm Planning, missing the transportation component).

  However, it is deflating to hear Michael discuss the gamut of options as he sees them, and in the same post declare that they are off the table for his team. Curiously, a team seems to be separate from the Task Force. Independent or separate?

  Either by lot subdivision—using fee-simple structures—or some kind of retiring-lease system —that returns the building and the land to the land owner after, say, 99-years—driving the effective cost of land down is going to play a role in defining this new ‘sustainability’.

  Finally, we could take the ‘one-third’ formula to the build-out population of the Old East End, which we argue could become a ‘laboratory’ for how to intensify the rest of the city and region in a newly minted sustainable urbanism.

  The key fact?

  The Old East End was platted and built before the automobile. Trips that were too long to walk relied on trams on Hastings and on Main Street. Sound familiar? To me it is the very model of sustainability alive and ticking in our city, back before 1914…

  If we take the build out population at 55,000, then it makes about 18,333 non-market and 18,333 affordable in the Historic Quartiers. The split there now is 2/3 below the poverty line (non-market) and 1/3 over.

  That is the inverse of the distribution of poverty city-wide.

  If we assume 10,000 non-market currently in the
  Historic Quartiers then raising the number to 18,333 means building 8,333 non-market units. My understanding from the locals is that we are looking for about 5,000 units to replace the SROs and house the homeless. But, that is only a back-of-the-envelope number.

  Of course, if something like 5,000 residents comprise the market segment in the historic East End—we have to count in housing in Strathcona and market condos in the area—then, we still have to factor in the co-op. There is a good number of those, but I don’t have a total. Anyone?

  How do you pay for it? We suggest this:

  http://wp.me/p1mj4z-yx

  Social infrastructure is paid for the same way as municipal infrastructure. We borrow against growth, including growth in the property values. Here, of course, we must be careful not to bet the house on the inflated prices of a real estate market in the midst of a property value bubble.

  Tax Increment financing to build 10,000 co-op and 10,000 non-market—if that’s where the final numbers fall—is doable.

  The benefits of a revitalization of the Historic Quartiers is that the one-third market join the other two-thirds in creating what is currently not there: a functioning local economy. A place with shops, services, and a range of housing that will provide employment and supports.

  Senior governments investing in social and transportation infrastructure (LRT on Hastings; BRT on Main; and a False Creek Streetcar) will also help to create the ‘rising tide that lifts all boats’.

  This is market stimulus through public investment, rather than social engineering. The ‘new taxes’ that Bill talks about do not come from existing taxpayers in the revitalization scenario. Rather, they come from a new population that is attracted to live here.

  In the final analysis, new paradigm planning amounts to winning the ‘beauty contest’ and growing the local tax base, rather than ‘losing the race’ by raising taxes.

  All the more bewildering then, to understand why we seem to be mired in the old paradigm.

  We understand that capital is always the slowest to move. Conservatism in investment is prudent policy. But, where are the agile minds that will spring us forward into the new century, and a more vibrant city that we can all feel proud about? Ultimately this is the question about leadership, that more and more seems to be detaching from a political debate that ressembles more and more an Acrimonious Food Fight.

  Are the new ideas in the Task Force, or sitting in the side lines? Time will tell.

• 43 IanS // Feb 10, 2012 at 10:50 am

  @Michael Geller #31,

  “Another creative lease arrangement might offer lower lease payments in return for a ‘shared equity’ by the landlord and a sharing of the ‘profit’ that a homeowner might achieve upon sale. A variation of this form of ‘shared equity’ is being used in Calgary and in many other locations.”

  That’s an interesting idea, though I’m not sure whether you’re talking about a lease arrangement or a variation on a vendor mortgage.

  If it’s a lease, I wouldn’t think the tenant would be entitled to any of the equity on a sale of the property.

  That arrangement you describe sounds more like a variation on a vendor take back mortgage, where the vendor agrees to a lesser rate of payment (or provides some other consideration) in return for a piece of the upside if the property is sold after it appreciates. I don’t think there’s any reason why people can’t enter into such an arrangement now, though I’m not sure it makes economic sense from the vendor’s perspective.

  I also think the GPM is an interesting idea, though it may also give rise to legal and economic issues.

  For example, as I understand it, some leaseholders are running into a “diminishing equity” problem, whereby their leasehold interest is going down in value as the lease agreement approaches the end. Wouldn’t a GPM make that problem worse?

  Also, what would stop a tenant from simply walking away after receiving the benefit of the initial lower lease rate?

• 44 MB // Feb 10, 2012 at 11:41 am

  @ rf 38 …. off-topic, but anyway …

  Desalination and renewable energy alternatives will indeed play a significant role in California.

  However, these are expensive and will affect the price of the food we import. For now it is totally infeasible to use desalinated water on vast acreages of crops, only for municipal drinking water on an extremely limited basis.

  With their agriculture located in deserts, there will continue to be a huge drain on the dammed rivers throughout the Southwest, which are now subject to decreasing storage as the glaciers disappear, and suck the aquifers dry.

  And don’t assume that water and agriculture there is not subsidized. One day they may realize that their economy will not support the level of exports they currently do.

  Moreover, it may well evolve that the alternate fuel supplies they come up with will not be able to meet the existing demand currently met by cheap oil, and shortages may well follow steep increases in our imported food prices.

  Being so dependent on food grown 3,000 km away seems increasingly stupid as every new report on these issues is published. This is the central reason why the ALR here needs to be protected.

  Perhaps the Lower Mainland, with the richest soils and mildest climate in Canada, could become a net exporter of food to points east in future. Mind you, sunny Alberta may one day get its act together and establish a strong solar greenhouse industry.

  Here’s to the Canadian orange.

• 45 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 10, 2012 at 11:57 am

  As I understand it, the problem with the 99-year leases in Bloomsbury came in the final years when the leases were about to retire, and the land and property would be returned to the landlord—if I recall correctly, in pristine and up-kept condition according to the lease contract.

  That didn’t happen. As the property was, say, 10 years from returning to the landlord, the incentive to spend money on repairs by the tenant, or the sub-lease holder, diminished sharply. Often, the properties were vacated and the Estate office had to find short-term rentals of an unsavoury sort, or move to either repair or replace the buildings (which were typically row houses).

  However, the primary advantage to the Landlord would also accrue in our city if the land was municipal property. 99 years from now, and we can use South False Creek as an example, properties that were on the fringes of development will have found the city growing around them, and their property values benefiting from a much improved location.

  The disadvantage to the individual with either leasing or co-op, versus finding ways to buy into the lower rungs of the property ladder, and climb, is that the valuation of our homes over 30 years or more in residence turns into a significant part of people’s retirement plans.

• 46 MB // Feb 10, 2012 at 12:38 pm

  Interesting stuff, Lewis (42 + 45). I appreciate that you didn’t fall back on the worn out, absolutist cannard about ‘SkyTrain blight.’

  800,000 non-market affordable units — that’s a lot of public subsidy. Co-ops, as typically structured, receive lots of public subsidy, both at the individual income and building levels. The co-op system is not perfect and requires much revision, but I feel it’s still worthy and superior to other forms of social housing namely because they are self-managed and the residents therein care.

  Private co-ops are a differnent matter. I think there is much potential for groups to get together and become their own non-profit developer on their chosen site. They may need some guidance (specialist consultants), and the city may be able to asssist them fniancially with low-interest loans, and other governments with limited grants, but overall a self-managed residential development seems to be an encouraging idea.

  Many of us would rally around any suggestion, however remote, to implement major and appropriate improvements to our transit system in most Canadina cities, and many of us see perfectly well the very significant stimulus such investments would bring to the local economy, but without any real plan, proposal or funding from senior governments, it’s not going to be much influence with this task force.

  Transit (and other important policies to create a more resiliant society) will have to wait for deeper wisdom and foresight to germinate at the provincial and federal level. Perhaps I just cracked another dry joke with that statement.

• 47 Frank Ducote // Feb 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm

  @Bill 41 – I guess I’m not sure why you ran for Council if you don’t see a role for government in righting the ills of society. If adequate and affordable housing isn’t one of them, please tell me what is?

  If the market alone could produce this socially necessary good it seems it would already have done so. Also, if the market could have done this without governmental intervention we wouldn’t care a whit who the DoP is, since that job would just be a rubber stamp role.

  So, Bill, you just want to play the role of the critic rather than a creator by waiting and seeing what the task force comes up with? That’s okay, but it seems to be a waste of your training and experience, and perhaps one of the reasons we hear from people like Insider on another Fabula posting.

  Over and out. I won’t be wasting my time trying to engage you further now that your position about the need for intergovernmental cooperation has been made abundantly clear.

• 48 IanS // Feb 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm

  @ Lewis #45,

  This is more the issue I was thinking of:

  “The disadvantage to the individual with either leasing or co-op, versus finding ways to buy into the lower rungs of the property ladder, and climb, is that the valuation of our homes over 30 years or more in residence turns into a significant part of people’s retirement plans.”

  I was reading an article about the south False Creek area which indicated that the value of the tenants’ leasehold interest was decreasing as time passed and end of the lease period was approaching. And that makes sense. A 60 year leasehold interest will be worth more than a 20 year leasehold interest.

  The problem was made worse by the fact that the banks were increasingly reluctant to fund a purchase, as the value of the leasehold interest was declining. The end result was that people were (and likely are / will continue to be) unable to sell their interests. A GPM, with increasing lease rates, will likely increase the problem.

• 49 Bill Lee // Feb 10, 2012 at 2:50 pm

  And here’s the report, via a speech in Toronto to Board of Trade (Chamber of Commerce) there on Friday 10 Feb.
  ….”Robertson said there are steps the city can take that won’t “put a burden on taxpayers” and will increase rental housing stock and spur economic growth.
  Step one: Ottawa can underwrite low-interest loans to finance new rental construction. Using the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s ability to obtain funds at low government rates, the city could kickstart a rental housing loan program to get developers to build rental housing.
  Step two: Reform the tax system to encourage owners to renovate and renew rental properties, and remove the incentive to demolish.
  “Let’s make it in the building owners’ interest to sell to someone who wants to preserve affordable housing, rather than demolish it,” he said.
  Step three: Provide support for landlords to retrofit homes to make them energy efficient, which would reduce costs and ease pressure on rents. The mayor didn’t say whether support was through policy changes at the city, whether it would be financial, or both.” [ more ]

  Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/Vancouver+mayor+tells+Toronto+audience+about+rental+housing+plan/6134963/story.html

  Ibbiddy-ibbitti. That’s All, Folks!

• 50 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 10, 2012 at 4:14 pm

  @ IanS

  Exactly the problem in the 1800s in the West End of London, where the Estate Offices represented very wealthy landed gentry, and yet they were bumping up into the same problem. Retiring leases were toxic. Nobody would touch them.

  @MB

  800,000 non-market plus 800,000 subsidized if we apply the 1/3; 1/3; 1/3 formula region-wide. And, I agree, it would probably collapse the economy. So, that’s not a formula for a regional program.

  The co-ops have their own challenges. The more a building, or a community is self-managed, the more they must rely on their own expertise, and the disproportionate amount of volunteer hours from a few keeners.

  So, I’m back to Ian’s comment that realizing property valuation over our lifetime, whether or not we are climbing the property ladder, is not a bad way to go.

  The issue might then be to focus on lowering the entry level housing, and here CMHC is involved. My first buy was a CMHC reduced down-payment mortgage.

  However, the real show in town will be to see how the Task Force deals with what are essentially market bubble conditions. We are hearing news daily from the U.S. where home owners have mortgages that are as high as 3x the current property valuation.

  @ Bill Lee

  Here’s another way to look at this issue.

  Unemployment is high. Cost for construction is low after the Olympics. If we are talking about affordable and non-market housing, than a large part of that can be built on land that is already paid for, under government ownership, etc.

  So, why aren’t these Days of Wine and Roses for building social housing? Are we back to waiting for “deeper wisdom and foresight?”

• 51 Jon Petrie // Feb 10, 2012 at 4:17 pm

  In my view no discussion of Vancouver housing affordability can ignore how overseas buyers have pushed up prices and pushed expectations of higher prices. Curious how little information we get from our media re existing restrictions on foreign buying in Switzerland, British Channel Islands etc and the absence of any real discussion of the pros and cons of such restrictions. One recent exception re Australian restrictions: Courier 12 Jan, http://www.vancourier.com/Chinese+ownership+helps+drive+Vancouver+dysfunctional+housing+market/6004546/story.html

• 52 Bill McCreery // Feb 10, 2012 at 6:29 pm

  @ Frank 47.

  I’m sorry if I have given you the impression that there isn’t “a role for government in righting the ills of society” and “If adequate and affordable housing isn’t one of them, please tell me what is?”. Please look closely at what I did say and on what I’ve said in many comments here and elsewhere. I think you will find we are in agreement.

  I did not agree with the NPA position on affordable housing of ‘cut red tape and let the marketplace deal with this’ as espoused during the campaign. My efforts to argue for something I thought more sensible and realistic were not successful. The marketplace is not the mechanism to solve this problem on it’s own. What I was doing in my comments was simply stating my understanding of recent history and present likely political outcomes.

  I’m not sure why you are referring to the “DoP”. I did not bring him into this discussion. And, I was not trying to state a position on “the need for intergovernmental cooperation”. I was simply describing my understanding of what has happened historically and the likelihood of those senior governments doing something meaningful about it.

  I believe I have stressed more than once the importance of the City taking a more proactive and a leadership role within Metro and with senior governments in previous comments.

  Yes, I am a critic. I was not successful in getting elected. I have, however, emailed Councillors Meggs and Jang in December offering to help with their ambitious affordable housing initiative. They have not responded at this point.

  What should be done? Yes, senior governments should be lobbied to bring land and/or subsidies and/or incentives to the table. They have the tax base and mandate to be able to do so, the City does not.

  On the City side it has some land that in some cases may be OK for residential use. That land should be put into the solution in a way that protects Vancouver taxpayers assets and accomplishes the goal of creating more affordable housing.

  I have crunched the numbers and if the land goes in at $0.00 and construction costs are reduced 20% below market housing and soft costs by 10% new rental housing can be available at $2.05/sf as compared to the market cost of over $3.00′sf.

  The amount of City, and even including senior government lands available and suitable for housing are limited. Vision Vancouver has not explained to we citizens on what basis they arrived at the 38,000 unit figure. I for one, would like a bit more background information before I comment further, however, I suspect the available land will require higher densities than will be appropriate fits within neighbourhoods.

  Given Vision Vancouver has not provided the public with the basic background information, reports, etc. and we have a history of their mishandling of planning and neighbourhoods, as above, I am not at this point able to know how or where to intelligently contribute to this important initiative.

• 53 JohnnyBerk // Feb 11, 2012 at 3:27 am

  I absolutely agree with Jon Petrie about the argument that it was foreigners who pushed the prices to a unaffordable levels. The government is hence obligated to do something to help the poor to stay in the city. Who would work in the Vancouver in low wage jobs, if they leave the area? We are not living in US to let people become homeless just because they were not that lucky as others. Renting vs. Buying question shouldn´t mean poverty vs. homelessness for poor people.
  I am looking forward to see if Task force will solve the problems with the housing market in Vancouver and find any solutions.

• 54 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 11, 2012 at 9:40 am

  “Let the marketplace deal with [affordable housing]”

  On this issue, I think we can all agree, as Clinton used to say, “That’s a dog that won’t hunt.” We have a regulated market place, and an overheated housing market. Neither is going to deliver affordability.

  The market place is dealing with it in the sense that people are finding ingenious ways of sharing houses, creating suites, and making workable living arrangements. But our debate is about what should be happening next, not what is taking place right now.

  The prices for housing in Vancouver don’t make sense to me, a home owner, and that just points to the fact that there is a key element missing in my calculus. I don’t know what it is, and that bothers the hell out of me.

  What is not missing in my understanding is that over the long term the market will correct, and like seismic activity, the hope is always that we will get a series of small shocks rather than just one, big one. However, there are no guarantees.

  As we look to the future, affordable housing is only one cipher in a complex equation that includes the livability of our neighbourhoods, transportation, and social mixing.

  Pick any one of those, and the fact is that we are not doing very well.

  Add to that the fact that the planning system as we have it really not delivering the neighbourhoods and the city we want and we have an issue that cuts across political parties.

  It is not a political question, the one that asks. “how do we do good planning?”

  While I concede that pointing to the shortfalls in planning policy is good political fodder for elections, etc., seen as a whole our city and our region is in a muddle of making less than optimum decisions.

  The root cause of this, as i see it is in the water—in our culture. In our recalcitrance to embrace ideas current in the professional world all around us, but getting no traction here. And we lack a professional culture where we debate these issues outside the political arena, come to some conclusions, and move an issue forward.

  It is a real puzzle why we choose to operate in a climate where the optimum outcome—which will ultimately make more money for the developer class as well—is not the one we seek. These are concrete facts that are missing upon which we should be able to frame a consensus.

  That’s where Bill stating he is a ‘critic’ comes into the picture. I see ‘criticism’ in the traditional sense of the word—as analysis—not in its politicized sense of a nay-sayer.

  The critical analysis is missing in how we go about building our city, and the shoddy results are everywhere to be seen.

• 55 Frank Ducote // Feb 11, 2012 at 3:25 pm

  Lewis – look at your recent tax assessment and compare it to the previous one. I’m pretty sure you’ll find that the value of the land component grew significantly in comparison to the improvement (building) component. Unless you made a whack of renovations or additions that is.

  Most condos in Vancouver, in contrast, stayed pretty level in assessed value, since there is no land component. (I’m not talking about high end penthouses or waterfront condos, which likely rose in value.)

  And its not polical will, a competent development community or design talent that is missing. It s land that is the one thing in shortest supply in this most urbanized city in Canada. Unless council caves on industrial land in Mount Pleasant or the FC Flats. And I sincerely hope that they do not do that.

• 56 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 12, 2012 at 12:42 am

  Frank—Montreal—Canada’s urban capital until the deal was struck to build the CPR to the west coast—is (my vote) for Canada’s “most urbanized city” today.

  Though, unfortunately, Montreal too has succumbed to Modernism, and Vancouverism, in roughly that order.

  As for land assessments, I have always felt that there was a conflict whenever municipal taxes stayed a-pace with periods of land speculation, and heated markets, that create wild fluctuations in property values.

  The question is this, given that we all recognize that we are in a “bubble”, what is the proper role of government to help us through those aberrations in the market?

  As to industrial lands in the False Creek Flats (east of Main Street—subject of the “Viaducts Competition” hosted by the City last year), or the area between Broadway and the Olympic Village… My views here, as they relate to the Old East End, but applicable more broadlly:

  http://wp.me/p1mj4z-sW

  On the one hand, ‘good’ urbanism will mix residential with business and artisanal uses (like in Montreal); on the other, we can’t keep industrial uses in an area that is no longer served by barges and rail—that’s what area businesses have told me.

  So, these irritants that in our urban policy are indicative of a system imploding.

• 57 Frank Ducote // Feb 12, 2012 at 8:22 am

  Lewis – so what was the percentage increase in your land assessment vs. that for the improvements?

• 58 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 12, 2012 at 10:02 am

  Imploding… sounds so Marxist.

  And its not polical will, a competent development community or design talent that is missing. It s land that is the one thing in shortest supply in this most urbanized city in Canada.

  FD 55

  Frank, my library, and papers, are in storage off-site. My recollection bears out your observations. However, the devil is not in the tax sheet, far from it.

  Urban design in our region still means “modern urbanism”, and with the Broadway corridor still very much up in the air, fair to say, “Skytrain and Towers”.

  I remember the time in my career when I made a conscious decision to ‘leave Modernism behind’. Difficult as it was, it gave me a whole new way to think about matters like this:

  land that is the one thing in shortest supply

  As old paradigm that statement is true: land for suburban development is all gone inside city limits. Old paradigm remedy: amalgamate.

  New paradigm remedy: switch paradigm. Land for redevelopment is everywhere in our city. And, so is the development pressure. Mix those two together and re-invent the city: livable streets, walkable neighbourhoods, affordable region.

  I wish I could preach “doom and gloom”. That if we don’t shift paradigm, devastating economic consequences, etc. But, the reality is not that. All kinds of places in Canada and the U.S. function quite effectively as automobile-dominated sprawl.

  What will change if the paradigm stays the same is the culture.

  If we don’t shift paradigm and embrace the longest standing tradition in urbanism, then what we are going to end up looks more American than anything I have seen in 42 years living here. In the words of Galbraith, and Paul Goldberger:

  “Private luxury and public squalor.”

  My talents will have been used to resist it.

• 59 Frank Ducote // Feb 15, 2012 at 10:25 am

  Lewis – I wonder, does your endless repetition of old vs new paradigms and how everybody but you is wrong around here makes for a great deal of success in having your message heard and, what’s more important, implemented? Enquiring minds want to know.

  You might find a bit more succeess in your endeavours if you’d quit trying to marginalize or categorize people who are, by real measures, more successful than you are at the messy business of building the contemporary city.

  And I stick by my statement about land not being in significant supply in the City of Vancouver. Buildings, people, businesses, open spaces, roads and rail yards occupy almost all of it. So for the, most part redevelopment and intensification are going to be required. Even under your so-called new paradigm.

  Unless, of course, we want to continue reducing our industrial land base for conversion to condos.

Leave a Comment