With little brush fires of community resistance to new projects breaking out here and there, city council is being kept busy. The West End is, of course, a major forest fire at this point, meriting its own advisory committee.
In Marpole, where there is a massive project planned for Marine and Cambie, more towers planned for the Safeway lot at Granville and 70th, and just generally more, things are building up.
So Raymond Louie is introducing a motion at council tomorrow that, to help deal with a lot of “misinformation” floating around the community, the city will hold two public events in September. (Sounds sort of like what the city did with the West End in April, as planners were sent out to talk about the rental-housing-incentive program and the specific buildings being proposed through it.)
The problem with all of these meetings, as people who work in community engagement will say, is that they’re coming so far down the road. The later communities get pulled into discussions about projects, the harder it is to convince them it wasn’t all some massive plot.
61 responses so far ↓
1 Robert // Jul 19, 2010 at 10:36 am
As a resident of Marpole I’m surprised Raymond Louie or any other of Council even knows where Marpole is.
2 Dave // Jul 19, 2010 at 10:44 am
Marpole… Marpole… isn’t that tree?
mmm better get ahold of headquarters at Hollyhock and figure out what or where that is…
Frances is right too little too late.
Even worse if you attend these meetings you will find that the process is virtually if not already decided when the planner(s) show up to “consult”.
Pretty sad when a Councillor has to propose a consultation committee…
I thought that’s what they and Mayor McJuice were elected to do in the first place.
3 Dan Cooper // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:16 am
After reading M. Louie’s motion, two words spring to mind: “touchy” and “defensive.”
4 Bill McCreery // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:31 am
The Gateway proposal is a classic example of what’s going very wrong in this City. Councillor Anton’s motion of last 10 days ago is meant to bring greater transparency to to approval process. But, that is only 1 part of a complex process.
& as FB has said, ‘to little, to late’. This committee is just another coverup to try to obfsicate the process until they slip it through.
Back to transparency, let’s see some drawings which properly show this proposal in it’s actual urban context. Let’s see where the money is coming from, when, & where it’s being spent. How much is the City getting in LIFT payments from the developer?
Let’s see some factual information about the true ‘Project Data’ such as the density. They are saying the FSR is 4.45 of the GROSS SITE AREA. But, the actual FSR is between 6.8 & 7.5 [I don't have the actual dimensions, which are also missing from the drawings & should be there].
If Council & the Planning Department want to be believed & credible, they best start being upfront & honest with the information they put out on development proposals.
5 Peter Ladner // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:37 am
No matter how much neighbourhood input there is, the rock of community resistance to density will always be up against the hard place of needing to infill. This will never be a green city while 75% of the area is single-family homes. (which isn’t to say we need more towers in the West End.)
Call it what you will, eco-density is our future. That’s why the Vision councillors voted for it during the last council.
CityPlan and related consultations will always be a hoax if residents think they’re a way to preserve the status quo.
Kingsway and Knight showed it is possible for residents to cheer for density– that’s the model to duplicate.
6 Westender1 // Jul 19, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Is this really about consulting with the public, or is it about appearing to consult?
“Public appears not to want what we’re offering, so must be confused. Let’s hold a meeting and regardless of the outcome, we’ll be able to say we consulted.”
Check, check, and done. All is well again in the world…oops, perhaps not – we didn’t really fix anything we just made it look like we tried to.
7 Morven // Jul 19, 2010 at 1:04 pm
In the interests of transparency and accountability, why do our elected representatives solve this issue by adopting a “best practises manual” for community consultation.
At least we would know as citizens just what are reasonable expectations for this exercise.
As a citizen, I am left with the disturbing perspective that city hall just makes up the rules as it goes along, though naturally they would see the same imbroglio merely as pragmatic politics.
A consultation charter please.
-30-
8 jesse // Jul 19, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Agree with #5. Density must come from single family neighbourhoods. For almost all “single family” developments I have seen, they are hardly “single family.” Main floor plus 2 suites and now potentially a laneway house. The city is getting more dense and I’d like to see the City acknowledge where much of the density increases are coming from instead of hiding behind loopholes in the building codes and not stating the obvious.
9 Joseph Jones // Jul 19, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Peter Ladner: “Kingsway and Knight showed it is possible for residents to cheer for density – that’s the model to duplicate.”
In March 2004 over 4000 Kingsway and Knight survey forms were distributed to residents of Kensington-Cedar Cottage. Of those, 345 were returned. See details in Appendix B of the related policy report. This is the only objective data that I know of, and nothing to be mythologized as a cheer.
As to Kingsway and Knight providing the model to duplicate, a June 2007 survey for Norquay Village resulted in strong community rejection of cookie-cutter planning. The egregious feature of that attempt was widespread imposition of a particular housing type not approved in the 2004 Renfrew-Collingwood community vision.
10 Urbanismo // Jul 19, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Yes, it is true that most of the city is sprawl.
But the Eco-density charter is just planning jargon to get the neighbours of Hallista’s backs: i.e. Brent saying PCI Marine Gateway is too far along to change significantly.
As we see at FCN, indeed all of the downtown peninsular, the predominant occupant cohort is empty-nesters. And this will be the case at Gateway and indeed all future towers as Wajax describes them.
No room for families here!
The Eco-density Charter will encourage stucco, six storey junk condos the length of the Canada Line and that is sprawl by any measure.
To paraphrase Michael, densify the gentle way: i.e. lane way housing, grannie suites and, my addition, the Vancouver special (above grade basement mortgage helper).
Within the sprawl, traditionally and of necessity, urban villages have sprung up: Thu Drive, Marpole and Kerrisdale were here when I arrived.
Vancouver has a many urban villages: many sprang out of necessity with quite delightful residential surrounds. They are nevertheless under threat.
Planners used to ovulate over Rose Street behind Thu Drive: do they still? Eco-density will threaten that small street.
I have dealt with and observed the Vancouver planning department during my forty years practising and it is true they nod at the public meeting then back at the office they just do what comes naturally . . . for themselves.
What Vancouver desperately need is affordable family residential and Eco-density will impeded such a genre: because it will encourage demolition of perfectly sound small, older family homes for profit.
The planning department was conceived way back by military men . . . now a new planning paradigm is needed.
And if neighbours cannot preserve the long-time integrity of their neighbourhood then Vancouver is a failed city!
11 The Fourth Horseman // Jul 19, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Excellent comments all, Urbanismo.
“Gentle density’ through single family neighborhoods, that could encourage family-supported housing (e.g. more than 1 bedroom!!) would be a natural.
12 Joe Just Joe // Jul 19, 2010 at 7:27 pm
The city could just flip it’s numbers outside the core to make a huge impact on demographics.
Inside the core we get such limitations as that at least 25% of units must be family oriented (ie 2bds or more but almost always end up being 2bds).
Outside the core they could flip those around and demand no more then 25% of any units be one bedroom. I’m sure some developers will state that there isn’t a market for them and that no one can afford them, well if all of a sudden the market was littered with them then people would be able to afford them as the demand is certainly there, the developers would still profit, just not as much as selling a greater volume of smaller units.
13 mary // Jul 19, 2010 at 9:25 pm
While I believe the Marine Gateway project is misguided for a number of reason, I do not object on the basis that families with children will not choose to live there. Parents make housing choices after considering a range of factors, including how much family time there is left after working and commuting. Urbanismo criticizes it on the basis that it will not accommodate families and points to FCN as “evidence”. This is not correct. Indeed, both FCN and Downtown South are awash with families with children. I don’t have the census data at my fingert tips, but I offer as evidence of the ‘family friendliness’ of both neighbourhoods that there are 2000+ on the wait list for local childcare, and that Elsie Roy Elementary School was over capacity the day it opened (and still is).
Coal Harbour is another matter, but it is also another story altogether in terms of price per square foot.
I also got a chuckle from the notion that planners used to “ovulate” over Rose St. given that Planning is still thought of by many as a predominantly male profession. And quaint as it is, it isn’t emblematic of the wave of future planning.
14 gmgw // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:20 pm
@Peter Ladner:
“This will never be a green city while 75% of the area is single-family homes. (which isn’t to say we need more towers in the West End.)
Call it what you will, eco-density is our future. ”
I dunno, Mr. Ladner; the leafy lovely lanes of Kerrisdale and Shaughnessy look a whole lot greener to me than Yaletown’s dreary canyons. Guess I just don’t have the right kind of vision (no pun intended).
Drop by again sometime, and we can have a heart-to-heart about how much Angus Drive would be improved by some 30-storey towers. Feel free to lead the charge for this worthy cause, by the way. We’ll always honour your memory.
gmgw
15 Kirk // Jul 19, 2010 at 11:53 pm
There’s a decent amount of families downtown, but in a relative sense, it’s pretty low as a percentile. Elsie Roy is a fairly small school, so it doesn’t take much to fill it. I wouldn’t be surprised too if there’s a drop off in the later grades as families move out of the area as their kids become teenagers. 2000 is a big waiting list for daycare, but the homeless waiting list outnumbers the kids. Chad Skelton from the Vancouver Sun did a series on where all the kids live.
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/parenting/archive/tags/childstats/default.aspx
I posted this link a few weeks ago, but a lot of people probably missed it. It’s a good read. Kind of shines a light on things most people don’t want to look in the mirror to admit. Want to see your footprint? Look at your Visa bill. http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-a-bigger-ecological-footprint-and-why.html
I’d be great if someone could give us some more data on the “Vancouver lifestyle” compared to suburban life. Everything we tend to tout as sustainable living like the Olympic Village and Yaletown could be the least sustainable. It’s the lifestyle of living close to amenities (ie buy fancy coffee, buy fancy clothes, buy fancy food…).
Sounds like more lower-income families is the way to a sustainable city
16 Urbanismo // Jul 20, 2010 at 6:35 am
@ Mary
“We offer an excellent education experience for 350 students from kindergarten through to grade seven.“. Rosa Fazio, Principal Elsie Roy Elementary.
FCN population is 10,500. With CMHC’s family stats at 2.75 persons per family am I right in calculating 3,000+/- families who should have 1.75 children each: i.e. 5,000 children?
And 2000+ waiting . . . still doesn’t add up
No 5,000 in FCN trust me and Coal Harbour is even more bereft.
Ummmmm, I don’t see a burgeoning pop of families and when the toddlers grow up they’ll be off to live in Abbotsford!
Rose Street . . . the planner was Ann McAfee.
And Eco-density is a pending disaster . . .
17 Michael Geller // Jul 20, 2010 at 7:34 am
Urbanismo, I’m afraid you are not right on your mathematics. The 2.75 number usually refers to the number of acres of parkspace required for 1000 residents.
While CMHC counts a lot of things, I don’t think they count the number of children living in different types of households. At least they didn’t when I worked there.
However, the School Board can give us the latest statistics for calculating child counts. The formulae are quite complex, but essentially there is a ratio for one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom apts in different locations; another for townhouses, and another for single family houses. In addition to counting children in different age groups, they then determine what percentage will go to public schools, and what percentage will end up in private schools.
Now , as demonstrated in False Creek North, there are an increasing number of households with young children chosing to live in apts, and the School Board may have to change its ratios somewhat in the future. Nonetheless, the number of children living in a 1000 units of high density apartments and townhouses is still relatively small.
You are correct in noting that the number of families with children choosing to live in Coal Harbour is quite different than on the North Shore of False Creek. It is worth noting that both projects were required to be designed with 25% of the units ‘suitable’ for families with children and the same provision for schools, playgrounds, etc.
I suspect the difference is in large part due to the higher prices in the Coal Harbour neighbourhood, although ironically, the average unit size is much larger.
I spent today travelling around Barcelona where virtually all families with children live in apartments. I couldn’t get over the number of children’s play areas along the streets. But of course, the culture of apartment living is different here.
One day, it will be more acceptable for families with children to live in apartments in Metro Vancouver, but first we’ll have to get the development community to design and build larger suites with suitable amenities. And we’ll have to plan neighbourhoods so that they are attractive for households with children….with schools in place before the first residents move in. Maybe Marpole is a good place to start! It could be a very attractive, more affordable, high density neighbourhood for households with children, as well as seniors and empty nesters.
The potential to create another ‘Kerrisdale’ for those who can’t afford Kerrisdale is a possibility.
On a related matter, I would recommend that the city hold off on approving the Marine/Cambie project as currently conceived until we all have a better idea as to how the neighbourhood might change. Perhaps the Marpole planning process could be thought of as an extension of the Cambie Street Planning Process, so that it doesn’t have to wait too long.
18 boohoo // Jul 20, 2010 at 8:40 am
gmgw,
Notice how those dreary towers are full of people?
No one is suggesting 30 storey towers on Angus Dr…spare us the ridiculous exaggerations to prove a point. Just because you don’t like dense living doesn’t mean there isn’t a desire for it.
Eco-density or whatever you want to call it is in principle a good idea, but clearly the details are bogging it down.
One detail that makes eco-density flawed from the get go is this notion that the starting point of any discussion with developers is that they are entitled to the maximum number of units they could possibly squeeze onto their plot of land. After that it’s all negotiation. So when you finally get them down to a reasonable number of units/sizes/etc… they balk at the notion of contributing amenities, cash for parks, whatever it may be cause they’ve already ‘sacrificed’ so much!
19 Urbanismo // Jul 20, 2010 at 9:23 am
@ Michael
Thanqxz for the head-up. I know the park/pop ratio: that is not my ref.
Being a CMHC-ista I bow to your superior knowledge of its stats . . . but somewhere in its distant past it did cite that stat: 2.75/fam/kids and it’s not bad ref at that.
So when you get back from Catalonia check out the kids . . . some, aye, some but not many . . . if you want to see families go to Abbotford!
20 Joe Just Joe // Jul 20, 2010 at 11:49 am
I beleive the number for the metro is ~2.6members per household. How many children per household it works out to would be educated guesses though, as if we assume a two parent home that might mean .6 kids per household if there are no grandparents living in the house, or it could be as high as 1.6 if there’s only one parent, but this also doesn’t mean they would all be school aged.
21 Bill McCreery // Jul 20, 2010 at 12:21 pm
@ Michael. You’ve cut to the chase:
“the city hold off on approving the Marine/Cambie project as currently conceived until we all have a better idea as to how the neighbourhood might change. Perhaps the Marpole planning process could be thought of as an extension of the Cambie Street Planning Process, so that it doesn’t have to wait too long.”
The present so called ‘public consultation’ process is not the above.
22 gmgw // Jul 20, 2010 at 1:04 pm
@boohoo:
“No one is suggesting 30 storey towers on Angus Dr…”
My point exactly. Why the hell not? Why should Angus Drive et. al. be exempted from the “eco-density” plague? There’s plenty of room up there. And think of the views from the upper storeys! I mean, hey, if we’re gonna do this thing, let’s do it right. Our slogan: “Condo towers on the Crescent, now!”
gmgw
23 boohoo // Jul 20, 2010 at 1:28 pm
gmgw
Why would you when there are so many other areas ripe for redevelopment adjacent to transit, shopping, etc…?
And why do you keep falsely equating eco-density with 30 storey towers? What does that serve to further the discussion?
24 landlord // Jul 20, 2010 at 1:28 pm
At the end of the day, the market has spoken. As the rapid rise over the last decade in property values everywhere in Vancouver demonstrates, there is a huge demand for living space in and around the city.
That demand is strongest for properties in Kits/Pt. Grey, Dunbar, Kerrisdale, Shaughnessy and so on precisely because of their single-family zoning. There are no cities in North America where you can live in a neighbourhood like those and be 10-15 minutes away from downtown.
If there are going to be high-rises in RS zones, let’s start with your neighbourhood.
25 Sean Bickerton // Jul 20, 2010 at 2:04 pm
The carbon footprint of someone who lives in a single-family home in the suburbs is more than double that of a condo dweller. That is the ineluctable logic behind eco-density which was approved as a city policy on a bi-partisan basis.
Given how loaded that elegant concept has become though, perhaps we should be focusing on transit-based density going forward, taking advantage of the massive investment in mass transit and bus/cable cars we’ve already made.
That would allow the existing character of neighbourhoods to be preserved, while increasing density where it already exists along the backbone of arterials already in use.
26 Urbanismo // Jul 20, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Mr. Bickerton, Sir. I understand and respect your concern for the preservation of our delightful urban villages. I also respect your concern for a clean urban environment.
And with your party’s support, “Eco” has become a politically charged word: and only a word may I say.
Yes, I appreciate your personal concern. I am quite cognizant, too, that your NPA civic party, demonstrating its deep care for the urban environment, inaugurated the Eco-density Charter: well meaning as it was!
But we have learned a lot following the year of this volatile controversy.
We now know, definitively, AGW is a miss reading of the data: we know the hockey stick is the result of over enthusiastic academics chasing rainbows.
We need no longer blame the innocent Smith families, of this world, waddling away from Marcello’s, farting belching, and generally stinking the place out, with their methane ejections. No need to blame the live stock either.
We know the earth’s atmosphere, climate and weather changes all the time: ice core inform us our earth has been much warmer historically even when the Smith’s were not arund emitting their bubbles .
The Eco-density Charter, unfortunately, is addressing the wrong issue.
The real issue, Mr. Bickerton, Sir, is that your Eco-density Charter will license small time realtors and developers to run rough shod, demolishing neighbourhood older, sound, livable small family homes replacing them with six storey, stucco junk condos . . . all for a quick and easy buck.
And, Sir, there go the neighbourhoods!
27 gasp // Jul 21, 2010 at 12:04 am
Mr. Bickerton:
Please provide the empirical evidence and underlying assumptions for your statement that:
“The carbon footprint of someone who lives in a single-family home in the suburbs is more than double that of a condo dweller”,
and please explain precisely how that logic applies to single-family homes in an area such as Kerrisdale (hardly the “suburbs”). Please also explain how the manner in which eco-density is being used by the City is rationally connected to, and capable of achieving your stated goal of reducing the carbon footprint of Vancouver residents.
Eco-density was a political decision, made without consideration by City Council of any of the evidence or many specific concerns raised by the public. The arguments used to support it did not stand up when the assumptions underlying them were critically examined by many of the intelligent people who reside in this City. The public only has one way to hold politicians accountable for their political decisions – through the ballot box – and that is what many people did in the last election by refusing to vote for the NPA.
Furthermore the fact that ec0-density was approved as a city policy on a bi-partisan basis merely demonstrated that none of the NPA or Vision councillors were capable of critically analyzing any information that did not conform with their preconceived notions about this policy. I note that neither the NPA nor Vision ran on the basis that they intended to implement such a policy, and Vision specifically represented that they intended to revisit eco-density if elected. I’m sure there are many people who now see that the Vision councillors have been equally deceptive and duplicitous as the NPA when dealing with the public on this issue.
The simple fact is that City councillors are there to act in the “public interest” – i.e., in the interest of those members of the community whose rights or legal or financial obligations are affected by their decisions. They are not there to do whatever, in their opinion, they think is right, but instead are supposed to act in the interest of those who are affected by their decisions. And if the public does not perceive councillors to be acting in their (the public’s) interest then those councillors will likely be voted out of office at the next election.
28 Bill McCreery // Jul 21, 2010 at 9:16 am
Welcome Peter. Hope you contribute more often.
You have raised an important issue. Like it or not it is not unusual for neighbourhoods to resist ANY change to the status quo Any progressive urban development policy must find a way to deal with that & it is safe to say most don’t.
I am not fully up to speed on the nuances of ‘eco-density’ but, I believe it was well intended. What is clear that the current execution of it is not universally accepted, @ least by many on this blog. It is also clear that the blanket bombing mega-density spot rezoning introduced by this Council is even more widely unacceptable.
Spot rezonings MUST be stopped immediately & eco-density needs a revisit by the next Council, not this one. They have demonstrated a complete ignorance of acceptable urban development policy making. It is my view that ‘gentler densification’ in general should be the objective. Whether, where & how is part of the revisit.
Some have taken issue with Sean’s assertions above & of the NPA. Sean, I & other NPA members both agree & disagree from time to time. I think, however, with further constructive discussion we could reach agreement on how to densify as well as many other issues. However, this aspect being raised does point out that the NPA is not a ‘whipped’ party in the traditional sense. Vision is. We are allowed to have our own opinions & in fact to vote on that basis if elected.
I also suggest that the next Council might consist of new NPA Councillors who will by & large not be those from the last. They will have fresh perspectives &, in part, formed from the current debate. Some of these, hopefully also will have some experience & background in urban issues & planning in particular which will be invaluable in helping to get to the core solutions for coming to terms with the difficulties in defining the course for our evolving City.
29 Kirk // Jul 21, 2010 at 10:00 am
Again, I’ll provide this link on how increasing urban density is not the be-all and end-all to our problems. Contrary, it could be worse because it “attracts” the wrong kind of lifestyle. It’s sobering to read because it says to a lot of people that everything they’ve been doing is wrong:
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-a-bigger-ecological-footprint-and-why.html
And, a quote (http://www.planetizen.com/node/42941):
“The findings are quite challenging for some environmentalists. In particular, they suggest that merely increasing urban densities and using public transport will not necessarily reduce total or per-capita ecological footprints. In Australia, wealthy inner city residents are driving less than others, but have increased consumption in nearly every other category of goods and services. Whatever savings are being achieved by bicycling and walking are being more than counterbalanced by increased airplane flights, food, clothing, and much else besides.”
Sadly, we cannot make meaningful change by simply changing our address or changing the brands we buy. We need to change our entire economic system.
30 Sean Bickerton // Jul 21, 2010 at 1:50 pm
To respond to the points raised, I guess I have to begin by stating two things I believe in – evidence-based policy, and global warming as a scientifically established reality. I appreciate that some don’t believe global warming is established fact and I’m not trying to convince them in stating this, just trying to explain my reasoning.
The major causes behind climate change are known – home and office heating / air conditioning is one of the greatest contributors, our industrial livestock farms another large source, with transportation surprisingly fairly far down the list.
One of the reasons urban apartment dwellers have such a low carbon footprint is that the carbon output to heat their apartment is so much lower than the output to heat an entire home. Another is that we tend to drive much less because we live within walking distance of most services and close to transit.
Another thing I believe is true is that the demand for housing in Vancouver will only ever increase, due to immigration, migration from other parts of the country and due to natural population growth.
To accommodate that growth in a way that helps reduce each new resident’s carbon footprint should be our goal. This is why I’m hoping we can begin to think about transit-based density. This would not threaten the character of any existing neighbourhood, would allow increased density where it already exists and where it fits, and might help shift the discussion towards reaching a more positive consensus on what desirable density looks like.
Having lived in Manhattan for 20 years, I love living downtown in a dense, lively urban core and I would like to see the downtown core of Vancouver more dense. I also respect those that want to raise a family in a home with a yard and a flock of chickens – to each their own. I think our city is big enough and creative enough to accommodate both to the entire city’s benefit.
31 gasp // Jul 21, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Sean:
While you say you believe in “evidence based policy”, you have not provided any “evidence” to support your theory that urban apartment dwellers have a lower carbon footprint than urban home dwellers.
There are many factors that affect one’s “carbon footprint” not just heating. In fact, most highrises in Vancouver now have air-conditioning – something that was unheard of 30 years ago in this City, in large part because we had enough greenery around us to save us from any “urban heat island” effect. And where do you think that the power for this air conditioning comes from – we buy it from the U.S. and it’s the product of dirty coal energy production (not the clean hydro-electric energy that B.C. previously relied upon, thanks to W.A.C. Bennett).
You talk about transit based density, but if you had been present throughout the eco-density public hearings, you would know that members of the public suggested this to Council, but Council wasn’t listening – and didn’t even consider this suggestion through their non-existent deliberations because they had already decided to approve the policy as written – and they repeatedly showed (through their body language) their complete lack of interest in what the public had to say.
Incidentally, I remember one person, a University professor I believe, who told Council that by building 4 story buildings along all the existing transit routes Vancouver could achieve their density goals without eco-density. Of course, they ignored that person as well.
There were also numerous lawyers, engineers and other professionals who tried to tell City Council why this was bad policy, but all their efforts fell onto very deaf ears.
The only people Council listened to were those in the real estate development industry who were salivating at the prospect of building condos in the single-family areas of this City because, as noted architect Peter Busby said in a Vancouver Sun op-ed piece, the downtown core is now largely built out. I believe Peter Busby’s firm is involved in the 36 story proposal for Cambie and Marine.
Bill McCreery:
I understand that you believe in the NPA, but I’m afraid that, under Sam Sullivan’s rule, we did not have NPA councillors who openly discussed the issues or represented the views of their constituents; instead, suddenly the NPA had a “caucus” (including the School and Parks Board members) that thought and acted and voted in solidarity on almost every single issue. Not only that, but they rarely discussed the reasons for their quick decisions. Instead they’d use some useless phrase like “I’m acting in what I perceive to be the best interests of the City as a whole”, without addressing any of the issues raised. As one member of the SHPOA (Shaughnessy) Board said to me regarding Council’s decision to rezone part of historic First Shaughnessy to CD-1 (the ‘we can do whatever we want on this site’) zoning, the message was “thank you for coming, but we don’t care what you think; now be good little boys and girls and go home”.
And then the NPA wanted the same people to vote for them.
Kirk:
Thank you for that link. There is a lot of information out there in cyberspace regarding the negative environmental effects of high-density development. What the trend is showing is that such developments have to be planned and placed much differently than what is being done in Vancouver. For example, the high-density development must be near reliable transit that is effective at getting people to where they need to be, and that people will actually use; otherwise, such developments do more environmental harm than good.
32 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 22, 2010 at 1:50 am
“CityPlan and related consultations will always be a hoax if residents think they’re a way to preserve the status quo…. Kingsway and Knight showed it is possible for residents to cheer for density– that’s the model to duplicate.”
—Peter Ladner
With long years of honourable service to our community, it is sad to see Peter bogged down in the old paradigm of planning (first statement), and championing the worst sort of result possible under that system (second statement).
“[I]f neighbours cannot preserve the long-time integrity of their neighbourhood then Vancouver is a failed city!”
—Urbanismo
That’s the core value of public consultation. People of the place own the local knowledge. We consult to glean local facts on the way to forging a lasting consensus vision of where we go from here. “We the Experts” have facts about what works in urban sites; “They the People” have the skinny on what works in their place. The perfect storm is when we combine… The “experts” are not the ones that end up in consensus. It is the neighbours that reach common ground.
“Yaletown’s dreary canyons…”
—gmgw
We don’t have a lot of sun in Vancouver, so matters of solar aspect and penetration should lead our discussions on building type and built form.
To: “Mary, Kirk, others…”
Families go where housing is affordable. I’m with Urbie on this one. The trail of family vans will be moving across the Gateway Project, and up valley to Abbotsford and Mission—but, only after land values crash.
“I spent today travelling around Barcelona where virtually all families with children live in apartments…”
—Michael Geller
As someone whose first language is Spanish, allow me to suggest that every one of those families would rather be living in a house with a front and rear yard, a garage, and one or two cars. There is something fundamental about the North American dream of owning a house on a lot. However, Michael, you can be our ‘reporter on the scene’ for a much more important debate…
“…the Marpole planning process could be thought of as an extension of the Cambie Street Planning Process…”
—Bill McCreery
Bill & Michael, are not the Ramblas in Barcelona the model to follow on Cambie Street intensification? Both are about the same width. I don’t know the history of Cambie street from reading the City’s blurbs on the project, but I suspect some 1920’s “City Beautiful” influence on creating a thoroughfare with such a wide dimension. Could we not make Cambie Street a Barcelona Rambla? Are we not, after all, a world-class city like the Catalan capital?
“At the end of the day, the market has spoken.”
—landlord
Yes. And we should busy ourselves about setting curbs to contain the market’s natural tendency to “irrational exuberance”. The municipality, not the market, is the repository of our shared values of place.
“The carbon footprint of someone who lives in a single-family home in the suburbs is more than double that of a condo dweller.”
—Sean Bickerton
Prove it. I’ve heard that one pretty much equals the other. Who am I supposed to believe? And, what if the suburbs should intensify? Yikes!! Is the turtle running ahead of the hare?
“Welcome Peter. Hope you contribute more often… Like it or not it is not unusual for neighbourhoods to resist ANY change to the status quo…”
—Bill McCreery
I don’t like it. It does not jive with my experiences—outside of our national borders—with charrette based planning. Neighbours and neighbourhoods welcome intensification when it makes sense. Is our problem that we have taken our eye off the ball, and become fixated with one type of urban density?
Kingsway & Knight; Cambie Gateway; The Woodwards; the HAHR; STIR; and the Cambie plan—none of these build quality urban places.
“[I]ncreasing urban density is not the be-all and end-all to our problems…”
—Kirk
Well put. Dumbing down the planning paradigm to “increasing density” plays into the hands of one type of developer alone.
What we have yet to come to grips with are the timeless values of urbanism: What are the physical and quantifiable characteristics of the best urban places? Bottle that.
33 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 22, 2010 at 7:43 am
Correction: Dumbing down the planning paradigm to “increasing density” plays into the hands of one type of development (i.e. one building type—towers).
34 Bill McCreery // Jul 22, 2010 at 9:07 am
Sean,
Here’s where 2 NPA’s disagree [@ least until we could debate this further]. Downtown Vancouver [zoning FSR] is dense enough. Vancouver is Vancouver. I don’t want it to become New York. There is a more balanced urban model which is better suited for Vancouver, our values, our geography, climate & place on the planet.
@ gasp, whoever you are [I prefer to know who I am chatting with otherwise there is the possibility the motives behind the hidden camera are not what they seem].
I believe the NPA has & will again deliver well qualified candidates for Vancouver voters to consider voting for. It is my hope that 2011 & future NPA candidates will be consultative & open in their decision making.
@ Lewis.
I merrily welcomed Peter’s having the good sense & courage to put this important reality on the table for discussion. &, yes, the public consultation / densification process does not yet work & will not until it is fixed.
Your reference to Barcelona will perhaps be better answered by Michael on his return from Spain. I agree, there are many good how to ‘lessons’ in many cities, perhaps that being one. you might also be interested in Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language which defines many ‘good’ ways of doing things urbanwise. But, in the end we come back to Sean, Vancouver is Vancouver & we need to do what is appropriate for Vancouver & those who live here.
35 Sean Bickerton // Jul 22, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Having read each of the responses carefully, I find no objections to the concept of transit-based density and one endorsement. I think it’s a simple concept that may provide a workable paradigm to lift us above some of the tired battles and hardened positions of the past few councils.
Coupled with respect for the character of existing neighbourhoods, transit-based density is the environmentally responsible thing to do and can present a way forward.
@Gasp – I’m working on getting the precise stats for you. There is a UBC researcher that has compiled comprehensive data that has been published and peer-reviewed that shows the footprint is much greater than double, but I’ve used that minimal statement until I have the precise numbers for you.
But just think about it from a common sense perspective for a moment. suburban living means driving everywhere – to work, to the store, to school, to entertainment etc. and often involves multiple vehicles for each family. heating and lighting an entire home uses much more energy than centrally heated apartments. every home also has to heat it’s own water, which is much more energy intensive. In addition, vancouver established the greenest building code in North America under the last council, which means that all apartment construction is much more environmentally sound than single home construction. For new residents, apartments are the greenest alternative.
Hi Bill – I agree completely that Vancouver is not and should not be New York – we moved from there to here for a good reason. But having moved there at its worst and seen it come back, NYC does have a lot to teach us about what makes a modern city work.
Here in Vancouver, there are many downtown streets that are dead at night and would be greatly improved if more people were living downtown and the street level was more animated. Planners like to create separate districts for commercial and residential, but often the most lively urban areas are mixed use.
My own view is that we need more people living in the northeast and south of the downtown core, which would make streets safer at night and could help provide some of the amenities our city is lacking, such as a proper concert and recital hall among other things.
36 Bill McCreery // Jul 22, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Sean, good points. More thoughts. There is still quite a lot of undeveloped FSR downtown & in general in Van. We can do some topping up where appropriate. The single family areas need a lot more thought, public discussion & plain hard work. But, Art Cowie’s 6 units replacing 1 single family is an interesting solution for some locations. What we don’t need is what the current Vision Council has been doing both what & the way they are going about it.
I have also mentioned in previous blogs about sustainable neighbourhoods & the need to redefine the planning tools such as catchments counts for retail, etc. Then we could walk, bike in all parts of the City.
37 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 22, 2010 at 11:07 pm
What would a consensus building, open and transparent, neighbourhood planning consultation process looks like when urban design principles provide the common ground?
Let’s begin with the idea that Cambie and Marpole are related. Then, in order to get the ball rolling, let’s assume that we have already agreed to look at the Barcelona Ramblas as a ‘model’ for Cambie intensification.
With that much on the table, the following is a list of “consensus building statements” we might test during the urban design process that delivers both a consensus vision of change, and an Urban Code for Cambie.
1. Human Scale
There are two lessons to be learned from the Barcelona Ramblas: the street aspect ratio (height of the fronting streetwall divided by steet R.O.W. width); and the length of the street itself.
These two factors combined account for most of the “experience of place” that we feel walking in the Ramblas. They set the stage for what takes place there everyday. And what takes place there is world renown.
There are five Ramblas. Three have subway stops associated with them (stop spacing is 1/3 mile/0.5 km):
1. Rambla de Canaletes (metro: Catalunya)
length: 500’/150m
width: 110’/33.5m
2. Rambla dels Estudis
Length: 625’/190m
width (average): 99’/30m
3. Rambla de Sant Josep (metro: Liceu)
Length: 500’/150m
width (ave.): 99’/30m
4. Rambla dels Caputxins
Length: 500’/150m)
width: 110’/33.5m
5. Rambla de Santa Monica (metro: Drassanes)
Length: 1,000’/300m (to the Columbus Monument)
width (ave.): 135’/41m
The longest straight segment is Josep-Caputxins, about 1,000 feet long—a venerable distance in human-scaled urbanism (3 & 4 combined).
Everywhere else the experience of the “corridor” has jigs and jags associated with it.
We might want to look to Cambie platting for introducing breaks in the (boring) linear continuity of the street.
2. The Quartier
The Ramblas do not centre quartiers. Neither is the width of the quartier (2640’/800m) reflected in the length of the Ramblas.
Thus, we shall leave quartier analysis to one side, with the understanding that it will be a driving force when it comes to analyzing Marpole itself.
3. Linked Sequences of Urban Rooms
This one is important. The way along the Ramblas is littered by small squares and public buildings that draw pedestrians away from the ramblas, only to return them re-energized. Some are very important—Plaça del Pi (Cathedral), Plaça Reial, Plaça del Teatre, and Plaça del Portal with the Christopher Columbus Monument.
However, a great many more are small and seemingly insignificant. They lie in waiting of a chance discovery by the visitor, or serve as go-to places for the locals.
The platting of the new building lots fronting Cambie should take this into account and group buildings together to create linked sequences of squares and urban rooms at short distances from the urban spine itself (Cambie).
4. Street Space
This will present the greatest challenges to our automobile driven sensibilities. Yet, this is the heart and soul of the Ramblas: the ramblas turn out what we most sorely lack—social space.
What’s the price?
1. Laning: two carriage ways each side of the centre median measure 25 feet wide, or two traffic lanes each. Curb lane has parallel parking off-peak, reducing the flow of traffic to one lane off-peak.
2. Sidewalks: about 5 feet wide. No light posts, parking signs, parking meters, bike racks or trees here. There just isn’t enough room.
3. Center median: 60-plus feet for trees, kiosks, and promenade. Yes, throw all the urban furniture you like in here, including portable cafe tables and chairs. Space the rows of trees 30-feet apart to adjust the street aspect ratio. Plant trees as big as possible from the get-go.
I remember ordering coffee in a café on the sidewalk, then crossing the two lanes to the centre median, sitting down among café tables and chairs, and waiting. The waiter made the same trip bringing coffee and croissants on a tray.
5. Building type (a menu of choices)
1. Tower
2. Paris Maisonette (6 to 8 stories)
3. Barcelona block (5 to 6 stories)
4. Fee-simple, ground-oriented, human-scale, high density, zero-lot-line house—illegal to build in our fair city.
5. Vancouver block (55 feet tall; cornice line at say 45 feet)
Make no mistake. There will be winners and losers—first the process will decide, then time will tell.
I would rule out the tower for lack of human scale, and the Paris Maisonette for being too dense. The Barcelona block I would abandon in favour of the Vancouver block—as Bill suggests, we need home grown solutions.
I would “zone” Type 4 buildings on mainly residential blocks; and Type 5 buildings on blocks with retail on the ground level. Note that these types are not just about “counting floors”…
Type 4 buildings furnish ground oriented units with doors on the street, and—don’t STIR—affordable housing in the way of mortgage-helper rental suites. Type 5 buildings furnish accessible units with underground parking.
Both building types would have dual-aspect units in suites larger than 800 s.f./80 m2.
6. Systems & Infrastructure
The two characteristics that recommend the Ramblas as a model for Cambie Street revitalization and intensification are:
1. Greater than average street width, and
2. That the Ramblas as we have them today are the result of building a subway (This latter point I cannot find referenced. Our transportation folks might weigh in with more background).
The desire to run a Cambie Trolley as BRT will have to be looked at in detail design. As will the allocation of bike lines.
Our own R2D2 Unit on-site (none other than Michael Geller) might weigh in on this: Would running a BRT, or putting bike lanes in Barcelona, spoil the effect of the Ramblas for pedestrians?
7. Financing
The whole exercise—a consultative, charrette driven, community design process—can be funded from the proceeds from growth. The City can issue a Marpole Planning Bond, and borrow against the future revenues of new growth. The enterprise, so to speak, would be self-financing.
Land lift is calculated on the build foot. Thus, as I understand it, building type does not enter into it. There is the same lift to 2 million square feet of new construction in re-zoned areas regardless of whether that construction is 600 feet high, or 600 feet long.
38 spartikus // Jul 23, 2010 at 9:05 am
I was wondering if people had noticed this story in the Courier:
The 14-storey residential building is proposed for the corner of Granville and 57th, and the 13-storey building for the middle of the large site. The development would include other buildings tiered from four to nine storeys.
39 Bill McCreery // Jul 23, 2010 at 11:32 am
@spartikus 38. Yet another example of what this Council has done by opening the flood gate for spot rezonings with no community plan.
Focusing on just one aspect, what are the implications of such density on the transportation systems when coupled with the also proposed high density spot rezoning @ 70th & Granville + who knows what next. We have just succeeded in improving the traffic safety & efficiency along Granville by shifting transit ridership to the Canada Line. What will happen when the Canada Line gets overloaded by the propopsed densification along it’s corridor, meaning the express buses are back along Granville + more local buses?
Non of these, together with a miriad of others have been properly thought through. It’s time for this Council to stop this out of control process. Tell developers no more spot rezonings NOW.
40 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 23, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“spot rezonings with no community plan”
We know what is driving this process. There is a perception that by negotiating density bonusing one site at a time, the city can cash in.
However, we are some way down that road now, and we are realizing that what is really going on is a kind of hodge podge urbanism. We need a vision that can span across the neighbourhoods, that can be implemented incrementally.
“… a University professor I believe, told Council that by building 4 story buildings along all the existing transit routes Vancouver could achieve their density goals”.
—gasp
I believe that is the consensus vision for change outside the downtown peninsula. Notice how it integrates neighbourhood intensification, street revitalization, and transportation. As others have said above, now we need to tool up a workable consultation process, and get the decision makers to take notice.
41 gasp // Jul 23, 2010 at 4:56 pm
The spot rezoning at 57th and Granville provides yet another example of ecodensity overriding the Community Vision. The Arbutus Ridge/Kerrisdale/Shaughnessy (ARKS) Vision did not approve any buildings over 4 stories. However, the Shannon Estate is a CD-1 zone so the ARKS Vision is trumped by ecodensity, thanks to the provisions added by Councillor Anton at the time ecodensity was passed.
This situation again belies Toderian’s public statements in the media that ecodensity would not override the Community Visions. The real villains, however, are all the City Councillors who sat back and allowed Toderian to make such misrepresentations unchallenged – especially since they all knew these representations were false and were intended to mislead the public.
In law such a false statement is called a false pretense, and could be actionable as a fraud on the public.
42 gasp // Jul 23, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Bill:
Thank you for your response. I hope you are right about future NPA candidates. The last three City Councils and Mayors have been a disaster. If new candidates who work with communities instead of against them can be found, perhaps the many people I know who didn’t vote last time will go back to the polls next time.
Lewis:
I agree with much of what you have written. Four story buildings along the arterial transit routes would follow the Community Vision for my area, and would not have raised the public ire the way “ecodensity” based development has done. But that wouldn’t have given the real estate development industry what it wanted and, SINCE THE CITY CONSIDERS THEM
(AND NOT THE PUBLIC) TO BE THE STAKEHOLDERS, the developers’ interests were paramount in their decision making process.
43 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 23, 2010 at 10:33 pm
gasp, it sounds like you would be voting thumbs up on many of the consensus statements.
I don’t think it’s all the Director of Planning, although I would not hesitate to say the guy is a bit crazy on towers. I think its more widespread than that. I think that there is, on the one hand, a general lack of understanding that we can do high density with human-scale product and deliver higher quality neighbourhoods in the process.
People, even politicians, may ‘say’ they understand, but one wonders. The nearest local examples are in Cabbagetown, Toronto, or in the by-ways of Montreal, and other Quebec cities that were active centres in the 19th century. The fact that these places are one hundred years old, and more, requires a level of mental gymnastics to update them to contemporary tastes and needs that is probably beyond the lay person.
Never mind that the type is banned by the Vancouver City Charter for reasons no one seems able to explain. Or, the fact that the big towers are big business. Like you, I also worry about how that may bring distortions to our democratic system.
All in all I feel that this is one argument the neighbours can win. On the face of it, the towers produce inferior quality urbanism. Furthermore, when a local government grants bonus density to one lot, it damns nearby lots to being overlooked, overshadowed, and over-scaled in perpetuity. It will not be possible to build a new tower beside the first tower because the project just wouldn’t sell. Thus, a kind of imbalance is being perpetrated, with local government assuming the role of picking winners and losers. Sooner or later one of those decisions is going to land in the courts, and we will see a change in the tides of towers.
Finally, the notion that towers are ‘sustainable’ is a canard. And, the idea that we should compare their performance to the single family suburban house misses the point. The comparison must be to a human-scaled, fee-simple, high-density, ground-oriented, zero-setback house. There, the outcome is obvious. The building form with the greater surface area in contact with the ground wins.
44 spartikus // Jul 24, 2010 at 9:18 am
Never mind that the type is banned by the Vancouver City Charter for reasons no one seems able to explain.
???? Could you elaborate on that?
45 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Spartikus, for reasons we really don’t know, the Vancouver Charter rules out the use of the fee-simple, zero-lot-line house.
Michael Geller has helped me understand that we really are talking about a “building” or a “house”, rather than a “row house”, as I used to describe it.
These houses are separated from their neighbours by a fire wall. Since two independently owned houses share the same wall (an odd idea for our region, but not everywhere else in the world right back to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians), there has to be law controlling the conditions of the construction and upkeep of the fire wall.
However, this building type, and this kind of legal stipulation, is ruled out of hand in the Charter, in language I have never seen. Most of this reporting is second hand.
We suspect that the predominantly wood construction in our regions, say versus brick in Toronto and Montreal, may be behind the thinking in the Charter. Of course, this is by now an old issue that can be dealt with in a number of different ways, including specifying non-cumbustible construction for the fee-simple, zero-lot house.
However, there are unintended consequences that one might even say crippling to our regional development.
(1) We have denied our region the possibility of building high-density, human-scale product.
We can achieve comparable densities with the fee-simple, zero-lot-line house as with towers if we measure density at the scale of the neighbourhood or quartier as a whole, rather than on a site by site basis.
Let’s face it. The tower always wins the density contest—all we have to do is build higher. However, if density is measured at the scale of the neighbourhood or quartier—at urban scale—the tables change. One the one hand, there is a limit to how close we will build one tower to the next. It’s an issue with ‘decency’.
The fee-simple, zero-lot building performs well when it is built 50 feet from its front door neighbour, and 70 feet from the rear neighbour. Now, we can find examples of gated communities in the Lower Mainland right now that space town houses closer than that (I know of a project that puts them 40-feet apart, front and back), however that’s part of the point of the “fee-simple” designation. The units have to be able to “stand alone” in the market place, and I believe municipal governments will be able to raise the bar on the fee-simple unit, where they have failed to do so on the strata town houses.
(2) On the other hand, the fee-simple, zero-lot-line houses would be a perfect fit for intensifying our 33-foot residential lots. The 33-foot lot derives its quirky dimension from “chain measure” (one chain = 66-feet).
The 33-foot lots are 1/2 chain wide. You will be interested to know that the typical zero-lot in the U.K. is 16.5-feet wide, or 1/4 chain.
Thus, we would be able to intensify Vancouver lots on a lot-by-lot basis (incrementally, that is) if we were to permit the fee-simple, zero-lot house.
Where would we do this? The worst housing conditions in our city today are where single family, 33-foot lots front arterials. Our FormShift entry demonstrated that lots fronting arterials could release the first 10-feet of land to the arterial, redevelop as two 16.5-foot zero-lot-line houses, and deliver a density boost of 10x over the existing single family house.
When we made a calculation of how many of these single lot houses are available on Vancouver north-south and east-west arterials, we came up with enough lots to double the existing city-wide population.
(3) This building type builds strong communities.
The front doors to the houses, and at least one of the mortgage helper suites, are on the street. The houses have front door yards, rear yards, and roof top terraces (no more barbecues chained to the railing, as we see along the podium units in the tower-and-podium product).
Redevelopment is both incremental, and city-wide. Renewal can take place one lot at a time, or on a series of lots. Small, medium and large developers can participate in this market.
Furthermore, we do not have to develop neighbourhood plans for “Vancouver Arterial Intensification”. The consultation could be handled city-wide.
(4) Did I mention BRT/LRT?
That business of releasing 10-feet of land to the right of way (the front 10 feet of lot depth are ceded to the R.O.W.) would enable implementing BRT/LRT on reserved lanes, and developing local-access lanes fronting houses that are now have just a 10-foot door yard separating them from the street.
It would require detailed design and consultation, but my expectation is that the local access lanes would also serve as bicycle lanes.
So, there you have it. Change one “sticky-wicket” and release a landslide of pent-up urbanism.
46 Sean Bickerton // Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Hi, Lewis, one of the things taht concerns me in an urban environment, especially on major arterials is street-level commercial activity, which is crucial to a vibrant urban experience and the overall economy. It’s also environmentally preferable as services are within walking distance.
This is why I’m a fan of the pedestal-style buildilng, although its worth noting that the very first podium building, which I believe is the Lever House in New York, has none, just a plaza.
How would you provide sufficient street-level commercial to animate the streets?
47 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 24, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Great question, Sean. Put another way—Is the lack of street-level commercial what is killing our streets?
While I agree that a good commercial strip is indispensable for neighbourhood amenity, and identity (think Kerrisdale, Commercial Drive, 49th & Fraser, etc.), I believe that the greatest part of the damage done to our neighbourhood streets is being done by high volumes of traffic, not lack of street-level commercial activity.
The pedestal style buildings (i.e. the podium-and-tower buildings that we see south of Granville in the downtown peninsula) are typically a double loaded corridor building, some four storeys tall, built overtop of underground parking, with a tower or two per block. The interior open space is shared space, like at Anchor Point (Burrard & Pacific), and some of the Olympic Village blocks.
Therein lies a big difference from the fee-simple, zero-lot-line house, which has a front door yard like the podium building, but also has its own private rear yard. The rear yard is where the barbecuing takes place, eliminating the need to chain and lock the barbecue as happens along the street side of podium buildings. There are no ‘barbies’ on the street in zero-lot-line housing.
There is a second deficiency in the residential podium we can point to. There are doors on the street, to be sure, but there are also doors opening on internal hallways. The hallways lead to elevators that connect to the underground parking. Thus, a lot of the “action” of people coming and going gets lost in the corridors. I suppose we could argue that accessing a garage on a rear lane presents the same issues for the zero-lot-line house. Yet, when I lived in a house in Marpole, the rear lane was the place for socializing with neighbours on garbage and recycling day, while washing the cars, or when I had a woodworking project on the go in the garage.
Lever House, now there is a piece of Modernism if ever there was one. Just west on 53rd Street is Paley Park, a mecca for landscape architects and urbanists alike.
“How would you provide sufficient street-level commercial to animate the streets?”
On Vancouver’s arterials, we would zone building type #5 (see post 37). That would be full commercial on the ground floor, with an elevator lobby to the residential above. This building type does not have ground oriented residential units, but it keeps human scale. With a 1 : 2 aspect ratio to the street, building heights would be between 40 and 45 feet on most Vancouver arterials.
The splendid restoration of the Salt Building presents an interesting model for ground level retail. If you stand in front of the glass at one side of the Salt Building today, you get to see clear through to the other side. That’s transparency writ large. I would be interested in replicating that kind of transparency on the commercial blocks. Imagine 3.5 floors of residential floating above a glass box of retail, where the only solid walls are the demarcation walls between different commercial retail units.
The question remains to be answered, “how much commercial do we need?” We could begin with a one-to-one substitution along existing commercial zones. The Type 4 buildings (i.e. the fee-simple, zero-lot-line house) adapts easily from residential on the ground to commercial or office space. That adaptation can take place incrementally as demand arises.
However, the real issue is not so much with animating the street on commercial blocks—we do that well enough in Vancouver (Robson-Denman-Davie are a cases in point). I see the issue in terms of how to animate the streets—get the bustle—on the high-density, human-scale, residential blocks. The answer begins with the doors and windows on the street, and here we are right back to the “Death and Life of Great American Cities”, and the Jane Jacobs epoch making narrative—warts and all.
The second issue that was not as strongly felt in 1961, is the volume of cars on the street. As I mentioned already, I see high traffic volumes as the real killer of our streets. Donald Appleyard pioneered in this area. Today, I believe for the first time, we are presented with the opportunity to reduce the volume of cars—while increasing trip capacity of the arterial—by introducing BRT/LRT on dedicated lanes (at a fraction of the cost of either Skytrain or subway). While this will be a boon for mobility and for reducing the carbon footprint of our neighbourhoods—if carefully designed—it would represent an even greater gain for the livability of our streets and neighbourhoods.
Consider streets like Knight, Main, Cambie, Oak and Granville, to name five evenly distributed west to east. The real problem with animating those arterials is not adding commercial, but rather finding a way to turn down the high volume of traffic. It is not until we breath some life back into the patient—by removing cars and increasing trip capacity—that I see those streets—along with the rest of our arterials—returning to life.
The advantage of BRT/LRT over Skytrain or subway here is that the trolleys/trains occupy space formerly reserved for cars, bringing about an automatic improvement in the resulting quality of the street.
Other writers on this blog have pointed to the need for good urban design in BRT/LRT implementation, including building medians to act as islands of safety for frequent pedestrian movements, and to provide planting beds for a mass of new urban trees.
In other words, it will take neighbourhood intensification; arterial revitalization; and transit implementation—as well as vibrant retail—to bring our neighbourhoods back to life.
Finally, I think we are coming to the realization that in order to be accepted, it must be planned and designed all at the same time, in an open & transparent public consultation process.
48 gasp // Jul 24, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Lewis:
I reviewed the Vancouver Charter and did not find any provisions regarding zero lot line housing. The Vancouver Charter is an enabling statute – i.e., it establishes the City as an entity and sets out its responsibilities and authority to impose certain taxes and make by-laws etc. I would think that the restrictions you mentioned would be in a by-law or in regulations passed pursuant to the by-law, but without further information it’s pretty hard to track down.
The fee simple row house has been built in Vancouver in the past. There is a small group of them (6-8) on the east side of Fir Street between Broadway and West 12th Avenue. I don’t know exactly when those were built, but it was certainly before stratas became available; I had friends who owned one of them (in fee simple) in the 1960′s/1970′s.
49 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 25, 2010 at 8:46 am
gasp, I’ll take a look at Fir between Broadway & 12th. Here’s my inventory of Vancouver’s row houses.
1. NE corner Sophia & 14th
2. SE corner of Knight & 21st
3. 2nd Avenue & Clarke Drive (best seen from the lane paralleling Clarke)
4. In Strathcona, on Hawks Avenue, between Georgia and Prior—four buildings.
5. East side of Victoria Drive, between E. Pender and Turner—two buildings.
I don’t know what kind of title or tenure is on these properties. The all look like wood construction. They are not models for the fee-simple, zero-lot-line house, but they are historic precedents in our city, significant because there are so few in existence.
More recent examples:
6. SE corner of Oak & 20th with doors on the street (Google Street View: 3.5 story to the street. Of course, the relationship to the street is compromised by the design of Oak. The architecture works; the urban design does not).
7. The Art Cowie rows on the SW corner of Cambie and 33rd.
There have been a number of strata developments on Granville and on Oak in recent years. The ones I visited during construction were built on structured parking, that don’t really fit the type because the buildings are too close together. Here, not only the relationship of the building to the fronting arterial, but the internal relationship to other buildings, is compromised.
The Director of Planning was on this blog, answering a post from Ghost, not too long ago, to say that the fee-simple row debacle was still on. As I mentioned in the prior post, my reporting is all hearsay. I’ve never even taken the time, like you, to read the Charter. And no one has walked me through this stuff.
After a session I presented at Land Summit last year, an architect approached me to report they are doing fee-simple, zero-lot-line buildings outside of Vancouver, and getting around the issue of the fire wall with language inserted in the property title.
I am responding under time-constraints this week, and some of the language is not very clear.
To Sean’s question, I should have stated at the outset: two building types are needed handle the intensification of Vancouver’s arterials, of which one has commercial on the ground.
What I’ve called type 5 (post 37) would be “zoned” on land that is currently zoned commercial. It would provide commercial on the ground in a strata building with underground parking. The second type, type 4 on post 37, would be fee-simple residential, with a rear yard, and a garage on the lane. Over time, type 4 could convert to commercial and office uses on the ground floor as happens in many cities.
However, the real barrier to the intensification of our arterials is not commercial vitality, building form, or tenure. It is the livability of the street itself. Given current volumes of traffic, it is hard to imagine how we could ask people to live in higher densities under those conditions.
The current plans for Cambie Street intensification looks like we are hell bent on replicating the regrettable conditions I have surveyed in places like Torino, Italy, and Grenoble, France. These results must be avoided.
While folks are out on our casual tour of Vancouver’s row houses, note how it is the single family house on the arterials that is oppressed and beaten down by their fronting conditions.
Hard to imagine that things are going to improve if we front apartments with double-loaded corridors on the arterials, even as we fail to simultaneously address the design of the arterial, and the provision of BRT/LRT.
There are storm clouds ahead.
50 Bill McCreery // Jul 25, 2010 at 12:31 pm
@Lewis. You certainly are a trove of ideas & info.
You raise an important issue — the street pedestrian quality in high traffic arterials. If you get your wish, or, God forbid the City proceeds as is, & we have more density along these corridors &, even if there is a 2nd coming & people eject from their cars there will still be significant vehicular traffic volumes.
It seems to me an answer might be to widen the public realm r.o.w. either side & mound, low wall, plant to create a separated pedestrian realm. The wide sidewalks of the Champs Elysees & even Erikson’s small attempt of a double row of trees along Hornby [Howe was unfortunately forgotten] make a better pedestrian zone definition. And, we could vastly improve on that if the r.o.w. was 86′ rather than 66′.
I can’t help but think, in spite of your many creative suggestions, that you seem to leave out a fundamental component — the economic model which would allow your dreams to be realized.
51 Bill McCreery // Jul 25, 2010 at 3:04 pm
30″ high concrete planters examples of the above within the 66′ r.o.w. can be experienced in Penticton & Nelson on their main drags. They are typically @ corners + mid=block & create a good pedestrian sidewalk zone.
With 10′ more wonders could be achieved along the full length of each block. In addition, traffic would move better, fewer pedestrians would be minced, a separated bike lane could be part of all this. The mind boggles!
There is a Vancouver solution here. We love to combine more generous ‘soft’ landscaping with the ‘hard’ bits here & our climate loves us for doing it. Such improvements really would celebrate an important part of what Vancouver is all about.
52 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 25, 2010 at 11:15 pm
“Lewis. You certainly are a trove of ideas & info”
Bill, we’re posting on the “Sunday Magazine Edition” of the Bula Blog so, there is need to be entertaining. It cheers me up to hear you doodling on the idea of private lots “releasing” the first 10-feet of land to the public R.O.W. as part of an intensification scheme that might deliver as much as 10x more density over the single family house. Our presentation of just this concept went 747 over the FormShift panel.
“fundamental component — the economic model which would allow your dreams to be realized.”
Well, there are two big things to pay for, so let’s take them one at a time.
1. Land—here I am no expert.
The intensification could proceed as an “overlay zoning”. If you meet the criteria, then your project can qualify for the 10x increase in density. Would it be possible to have the applicant simply “sign over” the first 10 feet of his lot in the rezoning process? I wonder.
If “land for free” seems undemocratic, the second question that arises is in what market would the value of the land be calculated for fair compensation? The single family residential market, or the fee-simple zero-lot-line? If the former, the land would be had at a hefty discount.
Finally, there is everybody’s favourite. Use the “land lift” to pay for it. Essentially tax-back the increase in land value to the project, and use those revenues to pay for the land. 10-feet of a 122.5-foot lot is 8%, so we are not talking a great deal of money.
2. The Transportation—not an expert either.
The opinion among some transportation analysts is that implementing BRT/LRT on streets that already have heavy bus service would not increase operating costs. Obviously, there would be some capital costs up front for construction of the R.O.W., erecting medians, installing signage and stations, planting trees, etc.
However, there would also be significant improvements in trip length by having the BRT/LRT running in the middle of the street, with signal control. Those would be important measures for luring additional passengers out of their cars, and increasing ridership and revenues.
“With 10′ more wonders could be achieved along the full length of each block.”
Note that most of our “arterials” are more than 66-feet wide, and sections of Cambie are significantly wider. Our arterial R.O.W.s are either 80 or 99 feet wide (the later 1.5 chain).
With 10-foot contributions from either side, those arterials could become 100 and 119 feet wide. Consider that Broadway and Hastings today are only 99-feet wide.
If we want to build human-scaled urbanism, then at a 1 : 2 aspect ratio, widening the street by 2 x 10-feet or 20 feet, means that the buildings on either side can add an extra storey, or an additional 10 feet.
That additional density “bonus”, of course, is something that can be captured back in part, or in whole. This might also be part of the formula for “buying back the land”.
53 Bill McCreery // Jul 26, 2010 at 10:34 am
F0r starters the 10′ precident is the 10′ lane dedication for properties without a lane. If the owner wants to get permits they have to dedicate half the lane r.o.w. to the City. They are allowed to use the original site area to calculate FSR, so no financial loss.
A similar front yard exercise could work. There might have to be a below grade allowance for underground parking in the dedicated setback in some sites [120' typical property depth can allow 2 double loaded rows of parking].
But, let’s get back to what this post is about. I & FB said in 4 above:
“& as FB has said, ‘to little, to late’. This committee is just another coverup to try to obfsicate the process until they slip it through.”
That is what appears to be going on. “To little, to late”. @ this point the only course for this Council to regain some credibility is to call a stop to these spot rezonings. Once neighbourhoods have their own plans development proposals can be considered.
54 Sean Bickerton // Jul 26, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Mr. Villegas, Thank you for these extraordinarily thought-through posts. I’ve sent you an email to see if we could talk directly.
Thanks
sean
FYI, I’ve published a post today on my blog about public consultation.
55 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 26, 2010 at 7:25 pm
The lane dedication is a great precedent, Bill. The ability to preserve the 120-foot dimension for below grade parking will be a great benefit for the building types that are not fee-simple. If this works, we can get 10-foot dedication to the R.O.W. as part of neighbourhood intensification at no real cost to the City, at a great benefit to the community, and at a benefit to the property owner.
Win, win, win. We can build consensus on that.
That leaves the problem of how to fund the public consultation part of the process, including charrettes and drawing the urban codes.
My suggestion is to use T.I.F. (Tax Increment Financing). The idea is that the local government “borrows against growth”. A portion of the development levies, and the new property taxes to be collected in the future as the neighbourhood intensifies, is set aside to pay off a 10 or 20 year bond.
Others have argued that governments can borrow more cheaply from sources other than the bond market. However, U.S. jurisdictions that have the ability to do T.I.F.s use them as a matter of fact. They are never the whole story in financing development or transportation, but they are typically found to be one component of the package.
What I like about it is that it ties-in realizing growth with planning for growth. Rather than the “To little, to late”, this concretizes a neighbourhood vision in advance of developers investing energy and resources into visioning deals one site at a time (Frances’s point).
It also puts the right people behind the steering wheel. Neighbours get to decide how neighbourhoods will change. All that talk about NIMBY, I’ve been surprised to see, never enters the room. People are interested in making changes, and people are delighted when we put words to the deficiencies that so clearly, and so often, greet us when we get out in our neighbourhoods, especially when we leave the tank behind.
56 Bill McCreery // Jul 26, 2010 at 9:52 pm
@Lewis. I am reluctant to borrow against the future of anything. While I would be willing to have such a scenario examined, I would keep an open mind.
Let’s not lose sight of what’s happening here. We have a non-functional planning process that has gone off the rails because of bad decisions & bad management. Based on my experience in Vancouver, all 3 of those can be fixed but, not by this bunch.
57 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jul 27, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Peter Ladner – I was somewhat disappointed by your comment. If you’ve been watching closely, the folks in Marpole aren’t saying don’t develop here and we aren’t saying don’t densify – this project came to us with one pretty picture and then was quietly switched to another much larger and much less attractive design – with no picture, details or announcement. The public process quietly stepped by us and we now find ourselves battling to get process to come back to our neighbourhood. Marpole is going to be hit with a large amount of redevelopment which will completely alter our neighbhourhood. Whether this volume of redevelopment were taking place in Marpole, Kits, Cedar Cottage, Champlain or Kerrisdale, it only seems fair that the people who already live there, be let in on the real plan. Certain neighbourhoods seem to be looking at relatively small amounts of redevelopment, such as the very small redevelopment at the Choices on West 57th and West Boulevard. Since they are rebuilding at least half of that strip mall, that would have been a perfect opportunity to put up 24 stories and really densify over there. But it looks like two to three stories seems to be the limit in that neck of the woods. So you’re right, if certain neighbourhoods feel that they shouldn’t be subject to towers (or SkyTrains), then we will never have a truly green city. I’m sure our neighbourhood could get revved up and cheer for density – if only someone would be willing to be honest with us about that density in the first place. The issue in Marpole isn’t density – it’s about honesty, transparency and a public process that is real.
58 Angus Wong // Jul 29, 2010 at 10:03 am
@Jo-Anne Pringle: I am also a resident of Marpole and whole-heartedly agree with your sentiments. I’m not opposed to density either; I only wish it didn’t feel like the developers and the City were pulling the wool over our eyes! Part of me feels like they were trying to push it through to see if it could happen; if it weren’t for good folks like yourself who’ve stepped up to the plate, we could have ended up with a disaster in our own neighborhood.
59 Jo-Anne Pringle // Aug 10, 2010 at 11:10 pm
@Angus Wong – thanks for your support. I have met and spoken with so many Marpole residents in this past while – and all echo your comments about feeling as though there was an attempt to pull the wool over their eyes. There is an incredible lack of trust between residents and “the partners” in development. I have never been involved in battling public process before and despite the wool – my eyes have really been opened since I began this venture. Please stay in touch Angus – your voice in this process is much needed!
60 rob sandhu // Sep 16, 2010 at 9:25 am
Where is the Community Vision Plan for Marpole?
61 Mike // Oct 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm
This isn’t being done in the interest of the public, that’s for sure. It’s all about money in this city and any politician that will tell you otherwise is getting a nice piece of the pie in one way or another. Marpole is one of the last affordable neighborhoods in Vancouver, and it’s already plenty dense with apartment buildings. Let the working class people that live here keep their dignity. You greedy developers start colonizing the area with your unseemly towers, sell 400sf condos for $400K then a bunch of rich Asian folks fill up the place, I know how it goes. Then the people of Marpole lose their Safeway for who knows how long. Developers, leave things the way they are and stop running this city into the ground with your greed.
Leave a Comment