173 responses so far ↓

• 1 Paul // Sep 26, 2012 at 1:47 pm

  Went looking for info on “Thin Streets” and found this: http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk//20040504/motionb3.htm

• 2 jesse // Sep 26, 2012 at 2:10 pm

  Supply-side that mo-fo! No surprises, nor should we have expected any.

• 3 boohoo // Sep 26, 2012 at 2:54 pm

  Why only arterials?? I do not understand the city’s basic refusal to plan for anything off arterials. It makes no sense to me.

• 4 Guest // Sep 26, 2012 at 4:13 pm

  Pandering to the NIMBYs
  (read: voters who elect politicians)

  If you had palnners doing it without political influence, the map would be completely different.

• 5 IanS // Sep 26, 2012 at 4:19 pm

  “If you had palnners doing it without political influence, the map would be completely different.”

  Perhaps it would be best to do away with elections altogether, as they seem to give rise to undue influence on behalf of the electorate.

• 6 Westender1 // Sep 26, 2012 at 4:25 pm

  Could someone translate the first entry in the Glossary? I’m still unclear whether the City’s definition of “affordable housing” is different than what people might commonly refer to as “any housing”:

  Page 54 at

  http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20121002/documents/rr2.pdf

  “Appendix 3: Glossary

  Affordable Housing can be provided by the City,
  government, non-profit, community and for-profit partners. It can be found or developed along the whole housing continuum, and include SROs, market rental and affordable home ownership. The degree of housing affordability results from the relationship between the cost of housing and household income. It is not a static concept, as housing costs and incomes change over time.”

• 7 brilliant // Sep 26, 2012 at 4:50 pm

  @Guest 4-”(read voters who pay taxes).

  Fixed tbat for ya.

• 8 Ned // Sep 26, 2012 at 6:42 pm

  Another year long adventure for this Administration, another report, another photo op, another big announcement good for as long the wave is high, meaning right now!
  Wave surfing at its best people, with no chance in hell to get anywhere.
  Who in here is a betting man, I’ll put my money where my mouth is!?

• 9 Lewis N. Villegas // Sep 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm

  This is a good start. Mayor and Council deserve acknowledgement and our thanks for getting this issue on the table and into the general discourse.

  There will be things that need further clarification and deeper understanding, like for example:

  “Enabling duplexes, row houses and stacked townhouses to be built within 1.5 blocks of an arterial street.”

  Any honest survey of the way things are in our city outside the downtown, and the historic districts, would return that it is precisely our arterials fronted by single family residential that require our immediate attention!!!

  However, this is a good start.

• 10 Frank Ducote // Sep 26, 2012 at 8:48 pm

  @Westender- good catch. Not a very operational definition of affordable housing, is it? Hard to know when or how to you there if you don’t define it very well, or at all in this instance.

  Lewis – I agree that 1.5 blocks either side of an arterial (1/2 block deep) is indeed a good start. That equates to 3 block wide definition of corridors subject to intensification, which would be quite substantial. Especially since the Cambe Corridor plan is only a 1/2 block deep.

  I haven’t reviewed the report yet, but am wondering what it says about intensification at transit nodes. Anybody know?

• 11 Glissando Remmy // Sep 26, 2012 at 10:32 pm

  Thought of The Night

  “Vision singing to … Vancouver:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSXgU_yqXK0 ”

  Watch Vision’s reaction in the end, right before I’m about to ask an inconvenient question!

  Here’s the thing.
  What-Is-Affordable-Housing?
  No, but seriously!
  If I’d tell you that if you’d never have to work hard, not even a single day in your entire life, but instead spend your adult life biking, sailing, traveling, gardening, and generally moving from one charitable foundation to the other… if I’d tell you that if you do that, one day you too can become Mayor of a major city… would you believe me?
  Of course you would!
  That’s why you live in Vancouver, in BC the Best Place on Earth! Because you are a believer!

  I too, was a believer that day, during the Complete Development Application presented e Urban Design Panel, inside the 3rd floor meeting room.

  20 plus row town houses on a lot formerly occupied by three SDHs, on Oak Street, between 37th and 38th. Developer, if memory serves me right … Chandler. Anyhoo.
  It was about a nice little project, requesting some more density here and there, some relaxations re. materials, architectural expression, etc.
  The strongest sale point of the whole presentation was, and both the architect and the developer tried hard to emphasize it, was… you guessed… affordability!

  They made a little story where mom and pop would be able to move back into their neighborhood, next to their kids, who would be living to their kids, and their kids’ kids… oh, well, all affordable.

  Have I mentioned that the biggest TH was cca 1120 sqft?
  Yes, spacious as well!
  Approved by the UDP during a standing ovation, shot throw the DPB and Council right to the construction/ marketing/ sale stage, the development grew in place faster than an ADHD kid on steroids.

  And one day, surprise! Our little lad was ready to be advertised for sale.
  Starting at $650,000 and up.
  That was 8 years ago.
  Affordable? For that? You be the judge.

  Anorexia Nervosa Streets Report basically stole the first page from Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Diet.
  At least Dr. B. lets you have a smoke in a public park!

  Creating a Vancouver Housing Authority?
  Are you kidding me?
  What Essentially This Is… A Push for the Creation Of A 2nd Form Of Local Bureaucracy Vision Vancouver Wannabee Bureaucrats Must Be Extatic!

  To this end all I have to say to Mr. Mayor, His Task Farce & comp. is… “Please do not insult Vancouver’s Intelligence with that report, as you already know by now…

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 12 Everyman // Sep 26, 2012 at 11:24 pm

  @Paul 1
  There’s a pretty big flaw in Peter Ladner’s assumption: “AND WHEREAS the affordability of single-family housing in the city is improved by increasing supply”

  How has that worked out in the condo market? Hint: not at all.

  As Waltsyss mentioned in another thread, it will be very problematic to attempt this. People who have bought corner lots have done so with the reasonable assumption they would remain so. I hope a few homeowners would drag the city into court over it.

• 13 rico // Sep 27, 2012 at 5:48 am

  It is amazing the number of people who think supply and demand does not apply to Vancouver. For the record housing would be way more expensive without the condo boom….the tricky part to understand is those new expensive units may not be where the price drops (or does not rise as fast). ie those people who bought an expensive condo at the Olympic village did not buy the house they would have at Kits, reducing the growth of its price so the couple who were going to buy a house on 52 could buy in Kits ect.

• 14 Roger Kemble // Sep 27, 2012 at 9:13 am

  I hope we will see more potent initiatives coming out of the lunchtime task force than this lame attempt.

  Of course expect the usual suspects to come on board, then go quiet, when affordability remains elusive and the resulting neighbourhood furor erupts.

  Mind you, as a none-driver avid walker, I have no problem with the task force putting obstacles in the way of motorist where ever possible: just don’t expect homes to become more affordable.

  If supply is the solution, how come this recent manic spate of tear-down-speculation hasn’t cooled the . . . errrrr . . . market.

  The actual affordable housing problem in Vancouver, as across the world, is . . .

  http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/8308 currency debasement

  . . . but that is no reason for the Task Force to stop grand standing.

  There isn’t much the TF can do about world financial shenanigans.

  But its lunch time chit-chats would be more palatable to prospecting families if they would concentrate on reminding their Vancouver Club cronies to up house-hold incomes in concert with the upping cost of a family home in this funny little town by the sea!

• 15 Frank Ducote // Sep 27, 2012 at 9:35 am

  Why do people get so worked up about the conversion of streets to houses? Are they so enamoured of the streets as they are, perfectly designed and used? And at the same time consuming, say, about 30% of our city’s land area? Do they feel sorry for people who own corner lots? With so many other fish to fry in this larger conversation about affordability, it is mystifying that this becomes such a focus of attention. If nothing else, it has help galvanize how we distribute the resources of the city, especially its public lands, i.e., road space.

  With a land area of only 44 square miles, Vancouver has about 13 sq. miles of land dedicated as road rights of way, by my estimates, over 8,000 acres/3230 ha. Even if only 1% of that significant largess was incrementally converted to other uses over time, not only for housing sites but maybe miniparks, plazas, community gardens, day care, storm water management systems, etc., that would be 84 acres of already owned public land available to citizens for other uses than as free parking for adjoining property owners. It would also, as Roger notes, help calm traffic in the affected neighbourhoods.

  Doesn’t sound like a bad deal to me.

• 16 IanS // Sep 27, 2012 at 9:50 am

  @Frank Ducote #15,

  I’m not particularly worked up about the “thin streets” idea. I live downtown and rarely drive. It won’t affect me.

  However, I am skeptical that the idea will have any real effect on, or is even motivated by concerns relating to, affordable housing. Do you honestly believe that the amount of new housing to be created by this idea will affect affordability?

  If the City wants to convert streets to lanes, raise money by creating additional land to sell off or make on street parking more difficult in order to frustrate motorists then, of course, they can do so. But I don’t buy the “affordable housing” justification.

• 17 Dan Cooper // Sep 27, 2012 at 9:52 am

  My sense is that a lot of Vancouver streets are pretty dang thin as they are, and I at least would not want to see the surface/side streets that ARE slightly wider go away. Even many sections of the “bike routes” around the city barely have the space – and sometimes not even that – for a car and bicycle to pass each other between the cars parked on either side. (Hey! maybe our “Green” city councillor could propose some bicycle-only routes, if she wasn’t too busy wanting to just ban cyclists from going even a block on a major street so that no driver is ever slowed down even slightly. Just a thought…)

  That all aside, there is no way enough of this would be done – if it is truly by agreement with the neighouring landowners – to make even the slightest, tiniest difference in area housing price/affordability.

• 18 Frank Ducote // Sep 27, 2012 at 10:51 am

  If the new end lots at 33′x120′ each had 3 units permitted, and the land cost was closer to zero than, say, $750,000 per lot, I’d say there would a noticable nudge toward affordability in the local area where such housing was to be built, at least in comparison with nearby properties. More so if 4 or more units were to be built on each new lot, especially if without providing structured off-street parking, which could be a prior condition of purchase or rent.

  To mollify the (former) corner lot owner, perhaps there could be some arrangement about combing the two properties for even more gentle intensification, which should further address the affordability complaint mentioned by DC@17.

• 19 waltyss // Sep 27, 2012 at 10:59 am

  @Frank Ducote:
  I think that unless you want pitched battles and lawsuits galore from corner lot owners the City would have to consider your latter point.
  Imagine that you bought a corner lot (usually costs a bit more) and suddenly you are no longer on a corner lot and you have a 3-4 unit condo next door. I can just imagine how well that would go over in Kerrisdale or Dunbar or Point Grey (although Point Grey already has thin streets in large parts of it).
  It is probably why the west side is not on their priority list for thin streets.

• 20 Frank Ducote // Sep 27, 2012 at 11:29 am

  Waltsys – don’t think “condos”. That would certainly be the death knell in many parts of the sfr parts of thei city. Think rowhouses or small cottages. Four 800sf 2-storey “starter homes” could be built at .75 fsr on typical lots. But your point is well taken. Nobody is thinking it will be easy.

  However, there eventually has to be some change in the sfr neighbourhoods and this is one notable way to achieve multiple objectives, not only for family housing, as I listed above. All the while maintaining prevailing charactr, as the original report illustrates.

  Ground-oriented family housing is a highly desirable commodity in this city, and this is one way to begin to address the supply side of that issue, hoewever modestly. I think it’s worth exploring, as you can see.

• 21 Jan Pierce // Sep 27, 2012 at 11:45 am

  Frank Ducote says that increased affordability using the thin street model could occur if the newly created lot was provided for free or close to it. However, the city will have quite a few costs (potentially quite large) in terms of rerouting sewer and water and hydro lines, repaving, etc. This would have to be added in.
  If the new development is to have four units to make it affordable, can it be built in a way that doesn’t completely block and overshadow the front and rear yards of the adjacent existing property?
  If the street will continue to have two way traffic, the house that is on the other side of the thin street may lose as much of its livability as the one with the development beside it since car traffic will pass by only a few feet from the house. If it becomes a one way street, the adjacent streets will then have to absorb the extra traffic.
  All of this raises the question “To what degree should a possible perceived benefit to residents of the city as a whole (increased affordability) occur at the expense of a minority (the owners of corner lots)? The only fair way to proceed would be for the city to buy the two houses involved, build the new development and then resell the houses. Then the reduction in value and livability of the existing houses would be paid for by the whole community rather than just the few. This would also be an incentive for the city to ensure that the new development was as neighbourly as possible.
  Are most people in Vancouver willing to consider helping to pay for the perceived broader good or do they want to download the costs onto a few?

• 22 brilliant // Sep 27, 2012 at 11:51 am

  @Frank Ducote, sure remind us how affordable those 25′ lot Dunbar homes were. Once a developer gets their hands on these new lots they’ll go for the fastest buck.

• 23 MB // Sep 27, 2012 at 12:13 pm

  @ Frank, various…..

  Thank you for illuminating the tremendous land asset our cities possess in their road networks.

  However, one of the biggest problems with this idea is that there has been very little if any site analysis, almost as though streets stop existing an inch below the asphalt and at the curb.

  The relocation of larger neighbourhood-level underground services (let alone the smaller lot-oriented services) will contribute greatly to defeating the notion of new housing affordability using roads.

  Has anyone even sat down to attach a value to the land the road system sits on? Why should that value become a subsidy by not transferring its real value to new private homeowners (social housing excepted)?

  Then there are the trees. Thousands and thousands of trees. Granted, many streets on the east side are naked, but most streets north of 41st Ave are lined with trees, many of them in excess of 15m in height and over a half century old. These boulevard veterans will sit exactly in the living rooms of the proposed houses.

  What councillor will be the first to cut a ribbon in front of a row of streetscape big maples destined for the chipper in order to make way for rowhouses?

  Underground services, big beautiful trees and the ongoing issue of affordability … these are the reality of actual projects, not fluffy planning exercises that seem to go on for months / years before a civil engineer or an architect worth her salt addresses them.

  Yes, there may be the occasional stretch of road without significant trees or sewer lines, but my loonie rests on the potential that such roads do not add up to even double-digit percentages of the 34+ km2 consumed by roads in our fair city.

  This is such a distraction from addressing the real issue, the rezoning (or even rejigging the overly-generous setbacks) of single-family lots to something far more efficient an accommodating of our range of needs.

• 24 Mark // Sep 27, 2012 at 12:26 pm

  There will be some griping about this, and there will need to be significant negotiations with corner lot owners, but honestly it’s a good start and a rather clever idea.

  No, it’s not going to be a silver bullet that solves the affordability problem. It’s just one piece of a much larger puzzle that is going to take a lot of time and will to solve. In reality, Vancouver may never truly be super affordable to everyone, but anything that can be done to bring the prices down is helpful.

  I’m tired of the constant negativity and immediate shutdowns many people seem to bring to bear against any idea to make things better. We need to start somewhere. This is a good, smart idea to start with.

• 25 MB // Sep 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm

  I do agree with gently denser zoning within even three or four blocks of arterials because these deal with the existing lots.

  But a planner’s notion that half a road can easily be converted to affordable housing structures begs the question, Can planners project manage their way out of a wet paper bag?

  I don’t mean that as an insult to all planners, but based on my experience with both private and public sector planners, most planners do not have any experience building stuff and are lost with construction challenges. The ones with such experience are very rare.

  I would say that of certain people who call themselves “urban designers” as well, but whose public exortations place form light years ahead of function and site.

  I believe the best thing a mature city can do now that we’re trying to leave the last century behind (at least that’s what some politicos are saying) is to put their municipal reorganzational skills where their mouths are and create an Urban Design Department out the old corporate structures.

  True urban design is mult-disciplinary and employs — yes — civil planners, but also civil engineers, architects, landscape architects, quantity surveyors and others with real, live on-the-ground experience building things.

  I would guess that if the streets-to-(with a lotta fingers crossed) affordable-homes idea was run through a real urban design committee they’d toss it before the engineer could say “Two-foot diameter sanitary sewer…”

• 26 MB // Sep 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm

  @ Mark 23:

  I’m tired of the constant negativity and immediate shutdowns many people seem to bring to bear against any idea to make things better. We need to start somewhere. This is a good, smart idea to start with.

  And after 25 years of seeing this, I’m tired of big ideas that aren’t well thought out and inevitably get sunk, watered down or drastically altered in the execution.

  Perhaps building block-long walls of condos on half streets would make three weeks of deep excavation in the street to shift underground services worth it.

  And again, will the street land be given away for free?

  We won’t know until someone does the actual investigation of actual sites, runs the numbers based on development permit-level drawings (i.e. at a much deeper level than back-of-envelope conceptualizations), and determines the value of the land — and what to do with the value — that underlies the roads.

• 27 IanS // Sep 27, 2012 at 1:05 pm

  @MB #22,

  I think you raise a number of good points and I generally agree.

  OTOH, upon reconsideration, I suppose that factors such as increasing density on corner lots, destroying trees, removing on street parking and lowering road capacity might make the area less desirable to live in which would, in turn, lower the value of those properties. That would make those properties more affordable.

  While I remain skeptical that the minor number of additional units realized by this process will increase the housing supply enough to make a difference, I can see how it might lower demand in those areas, which is the other part if the equation.

• 28 Julia // Sep 27, 2012 at 1:08 pm

  Do we know what the capacity is of our current city infrastructure? If we add all that additional housing, would our electrical, water, sewer, system be able to handle it? Seems to me there is a tipping point somewhere. If we keep taxing residents at rate that does not fully cover the costs of usage/standby costs – are we not setting up a scenario where the city goes broke?

• 29 brilliant // Sep 27, 2012 at 1:29 pm

  @Mark 23-It is not a good or smart idea for reasons MB and others have put forward. You want a good smart idea – immediately zone all the 50 to 60′ lots so they can be divided into 2. Let the homeowner decide if they want to cash in, rather than sucker punch corner lot owners.

• 30 Joe Just Joe // Sep 27, 2012 at 2:29 pm

  I have to agree with MB and many of the above posters about the thin street proposal. Some of the other ideas do have merit. The thin street might be applicable to a half dozen streets across the city with ease but certainly not as many as people might think due to the reasons already listed. You can’t (we’ll you could but I hope they wouldn’t) take a single block and create a couple of additional homes, you’d need to do an entire stretch of road. Can you picture walking down a street and having to jot back and forth as the sidewalks don’t line up block to block?

• 31 boohoo // Sep 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm

  Keeping in mind all the delays in densifying Vancouver/Burnaby/areas that are already developed put nothing but increased pressure on suburban sprawl. Talk about expensive infrastructure upgrades.

• 32 Raingurl // Sep 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm

  I say bulldoze the DTES (leaving all heritage buildings, China Town etc. intact) and build mixed used affordable housing. It’s a no brainer. Toronto did it. What are we afraid of? VANDU?

• 33 brilliant // Sep 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm

  If Vision is so concerned about increasing housing stock why not let CP build condos on the Arbutus right of way. Given the ridicule they heaped on the NPA streetcar proposal why continue the charade of reserving it for one.

• 34 Dan Cooper // Sep 27, 2012 at 4:14 pm

  Random thoughts @brilliant

  After running a number of times (when I was running, some time past!) along short sections of it, I finally got out and walked a considerable portion of the Arbutus rail-line a few weeks back. Definitely worth doing at least once. I still can’t figure out why the Canada Line went down Cambie rather than there…well of course I jest! It went down Cambie because the people whose oxes would have been gored around Arbutus had more pull. Anywho, I would say that something should be done with it, since currently it seems to be just going back to nature, with hints of soon being impassable at certain points. Condos maybe…or a maintained park/greenway/(separated) pedestrian and bicycle route?

  @Mark. Many people apparently agreeing with or at least not opposing two of three bullet proposals, and some perhaps thinking one of them doesn’t go far enough, while opposing the third is different from everyone simply being nattering nabobs of negativity. (Oh, I love that expression!)

• 35 Glissando Remmy // Sep 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm

  Thought of The Day

  “Thin Streets (TS)… euphemism for Gentle Land Grab (GLG).”

  I wonder.
  What exactly was this Task Farce trying to achieve?
  Because… by Zeus, it wasn’t trying to tackle housing affordability.
  I can’t see it!
  Not from where I stand, no. The report could make the Development Industry happy, no surprise there, considering who’s sitting on the TF.
  I still don’t see it, and believe you me, I’m not blind, on the contrary, I’m a trained spotter.

  Somehow they overlooked one thing… there’s trouble in Paradise!

  Jobs in Vancouver are not paying enough, space is limited, housing is 300% artificially overinflated.

  Here’s the bad news though, there’s so much money in the world that needs to get laundered that there is no chance in Hell, to make up for it in new housing construction, as demand will easily overtake stock.
  Bye, bye low price!

  I get what Vision Vancouver and Robertson did. They fished the idea to the Development community, surrounded themselves with weathered professionals, by doing that trying to give a sense of credibility, reinforcing that they were doing something worth exploring.

  When the call to arms was made, some bit, some didn’t. I’m sorry to say that I saw names on that task farce that was used mainly for bait. Following this joke of a report some might run the risk to have their credibility wiped out, and that’s not good.
  But hey, we are all consenting adults, and we should know better, right?

  Anyhoo.
  …………………………………………………………………
  To this end, I salute and want to reinforce MB’s comments # 24 #25.
  REQUIRED READING!
  …………………………………………………………………

  Not long ago this is what I said on this blog:

  1st Dream Agenda for the Housing Affordability #TaskForce

  1)Persuade ALL House Millionares 2 Forfeit 50% Home Equity. Anything Less Would Be Uncivilized!

  2)Stop ALL Speculation Based Immigration Anything Less Would Be Uncivilized!

  3) Cut 50% Profits/ Wages/ Perks 2 Developers/ Design Teams/ City Staff Anything Less Would Be Uncivilized!

  More here #8:
  http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/2011-census-west-the-growth-engine-cities-take-most-of-the-increase/

  …………………………………………………………………
  Brilliant #32.
  Hear, hear… that would have been my next suggestion… and question, WTF no one touched on THAT!?
  …………………………………………………………………

  BTW, if the Task Force was serious about affordability and not about grab land and development they would have proposed a different form of development for those parcels. Period.

  They better have checked out what UBC is doing to attract new staff and faculty… they are proposing to lower the costs for purchasing homes on campus by 33% and to lower the rentals 20-40% of what the market is asking for on the West Side. Smart and a REAL SOLUTION! And hey… no months and months of brainstorming!

  Things are not so great on other real estate related fronts though.
  What the Vision led City of Vancouver, and their realtor King Bob are doing with the “Horolympic Village” is … ahem, short of being called “embezzlement by incompetence”, as the Vancouver taxpayers see their forced “investment” going down the drain, due to lack of occupancy, bad sales, maintenance costs and repairs.

  One other thing.
  Irony = Assembling a Task Force on Affordability while the Little Mountain Coop it’s been a Ghost Development for more than three excruciating years.
  Remember?
  Task Force on Homelessness… Useless.
  Now is the Task Force on Togetherness time… who has got my Gravol, LOL!?
  Talk about hypocrisy!

  …………………………………………………………………
  Mark #23
  Your comment is right out of gman’s (on a previous post) “Recycling” meeting. QED.eet
  I see you at least, as Corner Street Leader in Charge of Sidewalk Cleanliness. You might even get a job with the Ministry of Silly Walks. Who’s to say?
  …………………………………………………………………

  Housing Affordability…
  Here’s my solution. I said it before.
  Look at how and what’s been done in Vancouver in the past decade and … Stop-Doing-It!

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 36 Everyman // Sep 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm

  This quote from the Sun puzzled me:
  “The city will also consider increasing the supply of secondary rental units by potentially expanding the laneway housing initiative and — following consultation with developers — revising the building bylaw to require all new “ground-oriented” homes, such as duplexes and row housing, to include secondary suites.”

  Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Vancouver+considers+immediate+development+thin+streets+boost/7303613/story.html#ixzz27ixllmeU

  So the city is going to force homeowners to become landlords? Or just go through the expensive process of installing a suite they won’t use?

• 37 Lewis N. Villegas // Sep 27, 2012 at 7:01 pm

  @ Glissy

  I still haven’t read the report, and that is not just a matter of neglect, but rather the need to look at it in depth.

  But, I agree with the verb and tenor of your message. Having the report opens up the debate, and makes all of us focus on the issue. That’s the win-win-win.

  The rest of it awaits sifting through the details.

• 38 gman // Sep 27, 2012 at 7:45 pm

  Everyman “So the city is going to force homeowners to become landlords? Or just go through the expensive process of installing a suite they won’t use?”
  It would seem that way,the funny part is that it would in turn increase the value of the home making it even less affordable.

• 39 Oakridge // Sep 27, 2012 at 9:25 pm

  Settle down kids. The thin streets initiative is just a pilot. The whole point of a pilot is to figure out if the solution is viable. I have no problem with my city trying a couple bold ideas knowing full well that many of them may not work out and won’t pass the pilot stage.

• 40 gman // Sep 27, 2012 at 10:45 pm

  Oakridge#38
  Thats fine as long as my street is not the test street for what could fail completely.And Im not sure if “bold” fits the criteria of city planning.

• 41 waltyss // Sep 27, 2012 at 10:46 pm

  But Oakridge, I appreciate that your comment sounds reasonable. However aren’t you ignoring the fact that you have been brainwashed by A21 and ICLEI and that you are just a pawn of the Commie ICLEI handmaidens?

• 42 Dunbarguy // Sep 27, 2012 at 10:59 pm

  Pilots have a habit of becoming permanent

  Just ask the poor souls living on 33-foot lots with 7 laneway houses blotting the landscape, blocking the sun, any views and privacy they used to have.

  Some of the stuff in this report us worthy of discussion, but this council prefers to do shame consultations, then ram their ill-conceived policies through-damn the consequences.

  Our Tunnel-Vision Vancouver Council need to consult less with mirrors(who seem to really Luke all these ideas), and consult more with those who pay the prices for the half-considered policies they implement.

• 43 will Surina // Sep 27, 2012 at 11:01 pm

  Well, if they try to add a lot next to a corner lot on the westside, the City better get the cheque book out to compensate the corner lot home owner!!!

• 44 Frank Ducote // Sep 28, 2012 at 12:17 am

  Everyman@35 – extending the opportunity if not right that sfr owners have long enjoyed in this city – for a legal basement suite – to duplex and townhouse owners seems like reasonable and equitable public policy to me. I’m pretty sure nobody will be forced to rent them out, but they will be there if the situation arises for a mortgage helper, family member or whatever. Again, an example of gentle densification.

  Having them built from the outset will ensure that they are approved, inspected and therefore safe and livable. A much better situation than illegal or even legal conversions later on, IMO.

• 45 boohoo // Sep 28, 2012 at 8:54 am

  Dunbarguy,

  Gee I hope you’re not exaggerating….

  A laneway house was built across the lane from my house. It is far more attractive than the run down garage that used to be there, landscaping on the corner has been updated–all in all a definite improvement.

• 46 jolson // Sep 28, 2012 at 9:32 am

  At the rate of progress towards housing affordability that can be observed in Vancouver the working class shall soon be camped out on the streets of Vancouver in travel trailers, fifth wheels, vans, campers, and converted transit buses Roma Caravan style! Such instant communities founded on free land will certainly meet all the social, economic and environmental goals the City has set for itself, and the very essence of sustainability shall at last be fully achieved.

• 47 teririch // Sep 28, 2012 at 10:32 am

  @Franck Ducote #15:

  This initiative in no way guarantees ‘affordable’ housing.

  If ‘row houses’ or townhouses’ are slapped up in a neighborhood where the average house is valued at ‘X’ – how does that effect 1) the cost of the unit (sorry, but if the average house is $900K, I don’t see new units falling far below that price tag) 2) the valuation of the land in that neighborhood for future? Will those new units devalue exisiting property? After all, people look at their houses as an investment and I can’t see people being overly happy with the City taking away the value of that investment.

  I think the idea appeals to ‘architects’ and ‘planners’ as it is something ‘new’ they would like to test drive – without considering the true impact on those exisiting neighborhoods and the peoples that live there.

• 48 brilliant // Sep 28, 2012 at 10:44 am

  @Oakridge 38-Yeah just a pilot, just like the bike lane “trial”. This latest from Vision ire ironic in light if their wanting better dialogue with residents. They didn’t consult residents of Dunbar, Main etc about multifamily 1.5 blocks into their neighbourhood. But then, Vision knows best.

• 49 Jay // Sep 28, 2012 at 11:42 am

  For the few years I’ve been following these issues, I’ve seen different reports and OCP’s come along but nothing much really happens. I kind of just roll my eyes.

  Rezoning all the arterials makes the most sense to me. With low rise wood frame apartments you should be able to house around 200 000 people. And the neighborhood would not be as sensitive to change if it’s happening on a busy arterial. There is always a bus line along arterials, so people would be more inclined to use transit which in turn would lead to transit upgrades. The first arterial that should be redeveloped is 41st Ave. There is already an express bus running and with added density, a tram could be added. Each development could be set back a certain distance to accommodate a right of way for a tram.

  Unfortunately, when I see how slowly things are moving along Cambie – it’s been 3 years since the Canada Line began operation and nothing completed – I don’t see much happening anywhere else anytime this decade or the next.

• 50 boohoo // Sep 28, 2012 at 12:17 pm

  “Rezoning all the arterials makes the most sense to me. With low rise wood frame apartments you should be able to house around 200 000 people.”

  So we wall in all the single family areas with 6 story apartments on all the arterials?

• 51 Jay // Sep 28, 2012 at 12:40 pm

  Yes, yes. And if you want to travel to another neighborhood you would have to cross a checkpoint.

  I was thinking that we superimpose the Cambie Corridor Plan onto other similar arterials, which there are lots of. The top floors of these buildings would be stepped back so as to reduce the “walled in” effect.

• 52 boohoo // Sep 28, 2012 at 12:53 pm

  Why are so afraid to densify anything off arterials? I think the Cambie plans fails that way. One of its stated goals is to capitalize on the Canada Line, but it has greater density on Cambie and say 30th, 5 blocks away from the station than it does one block away on say Ash and 24th. How does that make sense?

• 53 Jay // Sep 28, 2012 at 1:23 pm

  I like the Norquay Village plan, but nothing happening there except for Kingsway (an arterial). So it seems the only spot where people don’t flip out and go on a crusade is when we redevelop arterials, which is fine with me because there is lots of potential capacity, and the density along arterials will facilitate better public transit.

• 54 gman // Sep 28, 2012 at 1:37 pm

  Last night Global News covered this and they showed a fire truck trying to turn onto what Portland call a skinny street,looked like they were having a bit of a problem.
  http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/thin+streets+provides+affordable+housing/video.html?v=2284612786&p=1&s=dd&searchQuery=thin#video/search/thin

• 55 westygrrl // Sep 28, 2012 at 2:33 pm

  The City has long had a policy of densifying along transit routes & arterial streets. Commercial properties can be rezoned & 6 storey mixed-use developments built right now, along Dunbar, 41st, Granville, Fraser, et al.

  This is different from rezoning existing RS1 along arterials, but that’s already been changing along Oak, Cambie & Granville St. over the past 5 years or more as well.

  Densifying across the lanes from commercial buildings could make a great deal of sense. It’s been done off of Hasting St. in north Burnaby to great success, and would potentially offer the least impact upon the majority of RS1 single-family zones that people are very sensitive about.

  The key is keeping them affordable. Density does not equal affordability, if the condos/townhouses still cost $800/sq ft.

  In discussing the Thin Streets concept at the recent Marpole Plan Open House this week, and examining the street/grid map on display, the concept comes up against the existing reality of smaller lot sizes and already narrow streets. In short, there aren’t that many thin, underutilized streets in Marpole to choose from, compared to say, Kits or Dunbar.

  This won’t be a one-size fits all solution, because it literally won’t ‘fit’ everywhere, but if we can be smart about where it could go, and open to some of the great urban design ideas for small spaces, then a pilot project is worth a shot.

• 56 Ned // Sep 28, 2012 at 4:38 pm

  This Thin Street project looks like an episode from Punk’ed where some friends are putting a screw up joke on you to see your reaction, and to laugh at you.
  Stupid but that’s what it is.
  In the end you laugh with them so they won’t say you’re a wuss, but what you really want to do is punch them in the nose.
  That’s how I feel about all this.
  IMO the success of this thang… not a doubt in my mind is close to ZERO!

  In other disturbing news… what the hell is Andrea Reimer doing in Beijing???
  http://www.bjdw.org/index.php/en/guest_article/?id=388
  If it’s not Cadman, it’s Robertson, if it’s not Robertson it must be Reimer…. all these green phonies going thousands of miles by plane to spread greenness. I going to puke now … $%#*&^%$#@

• 57 Terry M // Sep 28, 2012 at 6:34 pm

  “Thin Streets (TS)… euphemism for Gentle Land Grab (GLG).” Glissando @ 35
  This must be the shortest descriptive thought on all this thread.
  All the rest is a carrot on a Vision Vancouver stick!

• 58 Jay // Sep 29, 2012 at 5:40 am

  “Thin Streets (TS)… euphemism for Gentle Land Grab (GLG).”

  Bear with me, because I don’t understand. Who is the city grabbing land from?

• 59 Everyman // Sep 29, 2012 at 8:32 am

  I can see a problem with parking, if you allow new units to be built without sufficient parking and simultaneously remove a significant amount of street spaces.

• 60 Glissando Remmy // Sep 29, 2012 at 10:33 am

  Thought of The Day

  “Mayor Gregor’s Vision … Task Forcing Vancouver into Civic Cannibalism!”

  The idea being that if you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will… right!?

  Jay#58 … It seems that Terry #57 have got it!
  Mea Colpa, if that wasn’t clear enough.

  Here it is:
  The City is grabbing land from … itself!
  (oh, well, is from you too, ’cause it’s your city)
  But, I’m not talking empty lots, derelict plots, or decayed dwellings. I’m talking good, well maintained, with “life” pulsating underneath land, throughways, access roads, planted lawns!
  Like cutting your abdomen, ripping your good ol’ guts out and replacing them with the latest hoses imported from Taiwan.

  “As well, it will look to create a NEW HOUSING AUTHORITY (translation: doubling the size of existing bureaucracy, creating more jobs and opportunities for our Vision apparatchik) a bid to speed up approval of projects deemed to be “AFFORDABLE” (translation: we used this word because we still don’t know what the hell does it mean anyway) and IDENTIFY (translation: that would be YOUR neighborhood and not OURS) any city-owned land where affordable-housing projects could potentially be DEVELOPED. (translation: a gentle nod in the direction of the Developers in the audience)”

  Read more here: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Thin+streets+could+boost+affordability/7306263/story.html#ixzz27sVoKTe7

  Previously someone explained in brief what all this really means.
  Here’s MB’s post #23 in its entirety, because it’s that good!

  “Thank you for illuminating the tremendous land asset our cities possess in their road networks.

  However, one of the biggest problems with this idea is that there has been very little if any site analysis, almost as though streets stop existing an inch below the asphalt and at the curb.

  The relocation of larger neighbourhood-level underground services (let alone the smaller lot-oriented services) will contribute greatly to defeating the notion of new housing affordability using roads.

  Has anyone even sat down to attach a value to the land the road system sits on? Why should that value become a subsidy by not transferring its real value to new private homeowners (social housing excepted)?

  Then there are the trees. Thousands and thousands of trees. Granted, many streets on the east side are naked, but most streets north of 41st Ave are lined with trees, many of them in excess of 15m in height and over a half century old. These boulevard veterans will sit exactly in the living rooms of the proposed houses.

  What councillor will be the first to cut a ribbon in front of a row of streetscape big maples destined for the chipper in order to make way for rowhouses?

  Underground services, big beautiful trees and the ongoing issue of affordability … these are the reality of actual projects, not fluffy planning exercises that seem to go on for months / years before a civil engineer or an architect worth her salt addresses them.

  Yes, there may be the occasional stretch of road without significant trees or sewer lines, but my loonie rests on the potential that such roads do not add up to even double-digit percentages of the 34+ km2 consumed by roads in our fair city.

  This is such a distraction from addressing the real issue, the rezoning (or even rejigging the overly-generous setbacks) of single-family lots to something far more efficient an accommodating of our range of needs.

  Thanks MB!

  Now going back to the Vancouver Sun:

  “The thin streets concept was submitted by planners Christina Demarco, Ted Sebastian and Emily Carr University professor Charles Dobson as part of an ideas competition launched by the city earlier this year to spark innovative solutions for affordable housing.”

  Ladies, gentlemen and… gman,
  Here’s your first, unelected, new neighborhood Vision Commissars for the Silly Housing Directorate. They even identified themselves as Corner Street Leaders before it was announced and implemented as such (translation: before the newest Mayor’s Task Force On Togetherness, Loneliness, and Huginess was announced).

  Mayor’s Task on WE Tenants; Mayor’s Task on Homelessness (Street/Park/Bodega/All Seasons…); Mayor’s Task on Housing Affordability; Mayor’s Task on Oil Tankers; Mayor’s Task on Shark Fin Soup; Mayor’s Task on Neighborliness…

  I want to leave you with a simple question that I think, everyone should be asking Mayor Robertson…
  “Do you believe in the cult of your personality?”

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 61 Julia // Sep 29, 2012 at 10:57 am

  Glissy #60, that was my question up at #28. Do we have the infrastructure capacity to support all this infill along with the laneway housing and secondary suites. When we all flush at the same time – what’s going to happen?

  It seems weird – we approached the city in the summer to subdivide a 77 foot lot that held our family home. Splitting it and selling off half was the only chance I had of living in my old neighbourhood in Vancouver.

  I was told we had to consult our surrounding neighbours within a half block radius PLUS have letters of consent from the 3 adjacent properties before planning would even consider it.

  One neighbour held out and we ended up selling it as a single parcel. Ironically, 1 lot was 2/3rds the value of 2 lots even though it was twice the size.

  Has anyone done the math to fully understand what these houses might sell for?

  There is no double in my mind, that the very same neighbourhood would be earmarked for this thin housing concept.

• 62 gman // Sep 29, 2012 at 11:00 am

  Glissy#60
  You will be happy to know as of this moment I am working very hard on my spelling and on Monday I have arranged a tea party with my Granddaughter,it will be a very civilized affair and I hope to gain great insight into the world of genteelness.lol

• 63 Higgins // Sep 29, 2012 at 5:07 pm

  Julia 61… asks:
  “Has anyone done the math to fully understand what these houses might sell for?”
  Mmm, no I don’t think so. Why would anybody be inconvenienced by that? Smarter Vision Vancouver members, who know best, have already decided “It would work just fine!”
  Glissy,
  Bang on. You wrapped it up for me!
  But my personal favorite is this:
  “I want to leave you with a simple question that I think, everyone should be asking Mayor Robertson…
  “Do you believe in the cult of your personality?””
  I would want to laugh, but it’s too freakin’ true!
  Cheers.

• 64 Lee L // Sep 29, 2012 at 9:02 pm

  How many owners of Single Family Residence zoned properties realize that the neighbourhood they paid for is no longer Single Family. Vision Vancouver abolished the Single Family zoning category (but did not change the name) when it altered the bylaws to allow laneway housing and if I remember, that was about ‘affordability’ as well. Unfortunately, the city’s requirements for building one of these laneway things makes it price out at $250,000 – 350,000 plus a corresponding increase in property tax. Now nobody, except your mum and dad, are going to invest that much into their property, and lose their back yard without expecting to make something from it.
  And then when they get old and want to sell out, that extra lane house adds a BIG whack of money to the asking price. More affordable? or less affordable? I think we all know that answer to that. And now that this housing is being built in SF neighbourhoods, can they really be called SF anymore when 3 families with now less parking can occupy the SF property?
  It is clear, then, that laneway housing was but the thin edge of a wedge, and that the only way it actually makes sense re affordablitiy, is to change the zoning again, and allow the property to divide as a strata. This you WILL see. THEN it could sell for less because it IS less. But in no way, could it be called single family zoning any more..even now. It has been changed with the stroke of a pen so that 3 families can live anywhere in a single family neighbourhood and that isnt just a ‘trial’, that is practically ALL sf neighbourhoods. And the bonus, to Vision Vancouver, is that they were able to do it buy reducing parking ( garage ) which is one of their prime policy goals.

  Thin streets is kind of the same. All the people that live in Vancouver because single family neighbourhoods are NOT crowded, will just have to suck it up that the nice neighbourhood they paid to live in, will be densified, parking will be eliminated and the neighbourhood will become less and less what attracted them to it.

  These are very big changes to the character of our city, and it might be that most people want that change. However, my hunch is that they do NOT want it, and before these kinds of major change in the zoning of property is brought into existence, there should have been a general referendum where the question of extreme densification and the abolition of single family dwellings is put to the populace. Anything else is just zealots working at their business.

• 65 Julia // Sep 29, 2012 at 10:26 pm

  where are people going to plug in their electric cars?

• 66 waltyss // Sep 29, 2012 at 11:48 pm

  The thin street concept has intriguing aspects as there is no question but that the city needs ot densify. I can think of no other major city which has such a lack of density as the west side so close to the centre of the city. Moreover, notwithstanding the Vision haters seemingly so common on this blog, the issue is really non partisan. After all, the NPA’ s Sam Sullivan started ecodensity (he actually tried to patent the name); Peter Ladner clearly supports it, the list goes on.
  Thin streets is just one proposal but one that has gotten a great deal of press. Far more important overall is the densification along arterials and stepping down from row houses, stratas etc along those arterials to single family housing.
  With regard to thin streets, the issue is not the concept but working out the details and how it would resolve in practise.
  It seems to me that the physical aspects are not that difficult. As pointed out in the excellent article in today’s Globe and Mail, services do not tend to be on Streets (ie. north south streets) but rather are typically on the avenues. That issue is a bit of a non-issue. Similarly at least in Dunbar where I live the mature trees are mostly on the avenues, rather than on the streets.
  Parking? Well, it varies by neighbourhood. Looking out my window onto the adjacent street both this morning and this evening, there were 3 cars in one adjacent block, 2 cars in my block and none in the next block south.
  The far more difficult issue is who and how people would live in the resulting structures. The picture in the Vancouver Sun had a mock up of a house in Dunbar on the front page that was a single family house added onto to a thinned street. If this were to happen, would the house be sold; would it be a rental? Who would live in it? How would they be chosen? How would affordable rentals be determined? There has been a suggestion that rents would be affordable vis a vis the neighbourhood. Does that mean that in Dunbar they would be outrageously high given that a 33 foot lot typically sells for in excess fo a $ 1 million.
  Clearly the people currently in a corner lot would have to be compensated for suddenly no longer being in a corner lot. There has been some suggestion that at least in some cases the city might purchase the corner lot (now no longer a corner lot) and combine that with the “land” to build row houses, or the like. This has some attraction but it brings me back to my initial question: are these rentals or to be sold?. Would the neighbourhood be consulted? If so, you can kiss the concept goodbye in places like Dunbar or Kerrisdale which have developed nimbyism to a fine art. If sold, would these structures be below market (such as the UBC plan or as practised at Whistler) with the purchaser covenanting that any sale will be below market according to a formula as well.
  If below market rental, who will have dibs on them. Again west side nimbyism is a finely tuned art. It took a fair bit of strong arming to get some social housing into Dunbar and even that was on arterial streets at the corner of Dunbar and 16th. Good luck going into the residential streets.
  I see a lot of problems with it even as it seems intriguing. It would be nice to have a thoughtful discussion that addresses the pros and cons of the idea rather than biinging out threadbare conspiracy theories or the usual slagging of the bona fides of people you disagree with. Yes, Glissy you and your acolytes, can discuss merits or demerits. I have confidence in you!

• 67 brilliant // Sep 30, 2012 at 9:06 am

  @Lee L-truer words were never spoken! Think about it, 2 new homes with basement suite and laneway house. That’s six families with just 2 packing spaces between them. And if my hood is any indication those laneway house garages quietly become living space. Of course Mayor Moonbeam & Co naively believe those six families will magically give up their cars. That Visionistas think socializing the cost of parking onto the taxpayer is baffling.

• 68 Julia // Sep 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm

  Car storage is going to be a huge issue in the years ahead. People are not going to give up their cars en mass. They will just replace the gas versions with hybrid or electric cars. So, where will the park, where will the recharge?

  Car share programs need parking and charging spots too.

  Like I asked before, strip away all the noble thoughts about density and answer 1 simple question – what is our current capacity without spending billions on additional sewers, water treatment, etc. That answer should dictate how we approach this. When we are full – we are full.

• 69 Boohoo // Sep 30, 2012 at 2:38 pm

  Julia,

  So when we are ‘full’, then what?

• 70 Julia // Sep 30, 2012 at 2:54 pm

  It may stink but when we are full, the market will find that balance of supply and demand.

  It’s that, or the city must also plan on the infrastructure and service side to match it. Trust me – nobody wants to pick up that tab.

  Right now, residents pay .52 for every dollar of services they consume according to KPMG. With that strategy in play, the city will go broke.

• 71 Julia // Sep 30, 2012 at 3:17 pm

  we are going to put in all this infill housing and we will get to full again sooner or later – then what?

• 72 JohnA // Sep 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm

  Well it looks like the City of Victoria is going in a completely different direction to deal with their lack of rental housing.
  http://www.timescolonist.com/business/change+prescribed+relieve+rental+squeeze/7321476/story.html

• 73 waltyss // Sep 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm

  Where is this study that says we only pay .52 for every dollar of services we consume?
  And Julia, do you think that we are full or anywhere near full, particularly when you consider the low density of Vancouver outside of the downtown peninsula?

• 74 Frances Bula // Sep 30, 2012 at 3:48 pm

  @JohnA. I’d just like to point out that Vancouver is part of a coalition that has also lobbied for exactly this change in rental tax policy.

• 75 boohoo // Sep 30, 2012 at 3:55 pm

  Julia,

  You didn’t answer my question. Do we put a fence to keep people out?

  You mention infrastructure costs…people are moving here, and since development in Vancouver is slow, they move to suburbs. A lot of that is greenfield development. Check out any suburb that has any developable land left for that. The infrastructure costs for new pipes and the like out into the middle of nowhere Langley is more expensive than upgrading those in Vancouver, that’s for sure.

  So again, think about the region when we talk about these things. The world does not end at Boundary and the river!

• 76 Terry M // Sep 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm

  Waltyss &66 is at it again.
  “Yes, Glissy you and your acolytes, can discuss merits or demerits. I have confidence in you!”
  How is anyone in here going to take you seriously W if you always end with ad hominem attacks at people posting in here?
  TM

• 77 waltyss // Sep 30, 2012 at 4:59 pm

  @Terry M: I doubt that you would ever take me seriously. However, look at your posts and Glissy’s posts on this thread and then look at mine. Want to tell me who is engaged in ad hominem attacks? I thought so.
  Anyway, I am happy to discuss the issue anytime you want to.

• 78 waltyss // Sep 30, 2012 at 5:59 pm

  @Terry M. By discuss the issue, I meant thin streets, not who engages more in ad hominems which I have no intention of discussing further.

• 79 Julia // Sep 30, 2012 at 6:24 pm

  Waltyss – Sorry… it is MMK that did the study. City paid for it.
  http://fairtaxcoalition.com/pdf/ConsumptionStudyReport.pdf

• 80 Julia // Sep 30, 2012 at 6:35 pm

  and it is .56 not .52. next time I won’t rely on memory.

• 81 waltyss // Sep 30, 2012 at 9:40 pm

  @Julia: The study dealt with the split between residential and non residential taxpayers. The tax burden has been historically transferred more to non residential and in various places that has lead to fights with pulp mills and sawmills. Your suggestion was, or at least I interpreted what you were saying, that we were going into the hole for services we consume. However, we do pay for them and the issue (ongoing ) is the split between residents and non residents.
  As for additional infrastructure, while it will take additional infrastructure, it is not a one to one correlation. Densification requires less infrastructure cost than a new subdivision. Let’s say that all of Dunbar Street was moved to multi family residences. While obviously there would be hook ups to water and sever. Would it need upgraded sewer or water lines? I don’t know. Can anyone add something on that point?

• 82 Julia // Sep 30, 2012 at 10:55 pm

  If you continue to increase the occurrences of residential without growing the commercial, what do you think is going to happen. Any idea what the increase in occurrences is of commercial property rate payers? At some point you are going to drive the commercial rate payer out of existence if you keep assuming they can continue picking up the subsidy.

  It is only logic that 35 people draw more water than 10. 35 people flush the toilet more than 10. 35 people using the library or community center, or fire department is more than 10.

• 83 waltyss // Sep 30, 2012 at 11:25 pm

  While its true that 35 people draw more water than 10, it doesn’t mean necessarily that you have to replace water lines.
  With regard to business, greater densification creates more customers.
  Are you really suggesting that we should not densify or are thin streets something you are opposed to? If so, why? I am curious.

• 84 Glissando Remmy // Oct 1, 2012 at 10:33 am

  Thought of The Day

  “Politics ‘Ad Hominem’ As Usual!”

  Waltyss #66 #77… (I’m guessing #88 next)
  Mayor and Council’s decisions are affecting the quality of life, the landscape, and the future of this city. Period.
  If you are telling me that they are not to be criticized because you “love” them, well, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but, no can do.
  After four years in office, they have a proven record of cronyism, nepotism, and dogmatism.
  Insensitive to dissenting opinion, public consultation, or advice from outside party circles.
  Promoters of green-wash, symbolic projects and of cult-like initiatives.

  ‘You say eether and I say eyether,
  You say “Task Force”, I say “Task Farce”,
  You say neether and I say nyther;
  You are from Venus and I’m from Mars.”

  Task Force’s Report is a Words in Vain, Promises and Euphemisms Extravaganza Folder. A justification for all the money spent on photo-ops, foreign travel and expert advice… on city building.
  Nowhere in that Report I stumbled across the following: We can’t really address it; It’s a Ponzi Scheme; Prices are Overinflated by 300%; It will cost too much of taxpayers money to implement; We do have Unrealistic Expectations; It’s About Foreign Money & Local Greed; Everyone’s on it as a RBSP – Retirement Based Speculation Plan;… nope, not once.
  I do appreciate honesty when I see it, you know!

  Tell you what.
  You put out a report like that, while a development on 7th @ Cambie is advertising 2 & 3 Town-homes from… $989,000 … it makes me to LOL!
  And it also reassures me that Task Force’s Report will have the same impact on Housing Affordability in Vancouver as a bunch of Missionaries of Charity Nuns would have on Luxury Fashion Shopping at… Harrods!

  Just in case I didn’t make myself clear enough to my “admirers”, and also because I want you all to be happy, I’ll have to admit… I understand!

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QK9_Jzq0wA

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 85 Julia // Oct 1, 2012 at 10:42 am

  waltyss, I am not for or against densification. I am suggesting we are moving too fast. We need to step back and examine the big picture. Sustainability is more important than the payoff of quick fixes – especially when those quick fixes are hardly what you would call affordable.

  Density may create more customers, but if the tax burden issue is not addressed – the added customers is moot.

• 86 boohoo // Oct 1, 2012 at 10:47 am

  Julia,

  See my post above and question you didn’t answer. Sustainability for who?

• 87 MB // Oct 1, 2012 at 11:32 am

  @ waltyss 66:

  … services do not tend to be on Streets (ie. north south streets) but rather are typically on the avenues. That issue is a bit of a non-issue. Similarly at least in Dunbar where I live the mature trees are mostly on the avenues, rather than on the streets.

  That is patently misleading.

  Streets usually consist of short blocks, whereas avenues are longer, often by more than twice the distance.

  Therein avenues contain “more trees” and “more km” os underground services. Streets are not devoid of either. In fact in my neighbourhood the streets have larger trees (some with trunks en excess of 4 feet) and there is a combined 600mm diameter sewer on my own street.

  Many streets that fall to False Creek, Burrard Inlet and the river contain major trunk sewer lines merely to take advantage of gravity-assist to sea level where the outlets and treatment plants are located. By comparison, the avenues run with the lengthwise grade of the Burrard Peninsula and have fewer overall slopes.

  Moreover, every lot on every street is serviced by law. Even on a treeless block of a N-S street, the existing houses facing that street will have their services altered.

  Your attempt to minimize the on-the-ground costs of building housing on thin streets doesn’t stand up to scrutiny or as a general rule.

  And this critique still ignores the value of the land roads are built on. What happens to that value? Are you suggesting that housing be built on streets without an associated land cost (note: a lease would address a part of this issue)? Or that only a part of the land value is transferred to the new housing built on former roads, therein amounting to a subsidy? That may be OK with social housing, but will that policy be acceptable to the public when said units are sold privately?

  Just sayin’.

• 88 MB // Oct 1, 2012 at 11:57 am

  @ Julia 68:

  Car storage is going to be a huge issue in the years ahead. People are not going to give up their cars en mass. They will just replace the gas versions with hybrid or electric cars.

  There is a simple answer. Lease the parking spaces fronting one’s house to the owner for a reasonable anual fee, and have a strict policy of enforecement.

  Homeowners who do not use their own parking spaces will have to pay extra. Given the choice, chances are most of them will return at least one of their private parking spaces to their intended use.

  The lease agreement can address restrictions on campers, outdoor storage, etc.

  Residents in older neighbourhoods without adequate parking will likely accept a lease on a spot directly in front of (or a reasonable distance from) their home just to ensure they don’t have to haul groceries with arthritic hands and knees from a block away.

  Residential streets near commercial arterials should be metered with very few of those 2-hour zones for general use. Popping a loonie or two into a meter isn’t as onerous as many make it out to be.

• 89 teririch // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:07 pm

  I pulled this from the Van Meida Co-op website:

  Geoff Meggs Is Running …
  Away from the People
  by Joseph Jones – Sept. 29, 2012

  Geoff Meggs is running!

  This piece is not about Meggs seeking a provincial nomination with the NDP in Vancouver-Fairview — all the while clinging to his Vancouver City Council seat.

  Geoff Meggs is running — away from local constituents that he invited out for a coffee on a Saturday afternoon.

  A solid demonstration of around two dozen people came out to meet Geoff, but then Geoff decided not to show! With no regrets conveyed.

  This is the sort of guy who makes a date and then leaves you stood up. This is the antidemocratic character who famously declared: The consultation was the election and this is the delivery.

  From 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm at the corner of Main and 13th, neither hide nor hair was sighted of that wily political beast. Where else might Geoff have hiked off to on the afternoon of 29 Sept 2012? After all, he said he needed “a break from doorknocking.”

  Meggs is ducking out on a pile of political liabilities. No wonder so many people were out to try to meet up with him.

  Try these. Complete disregard of community input on the rezoning of Kingsway and Broadway in favor of the developer desires of Rize Alliance. Promotion of a gentrification scorched earth policy across Vancouver. Impending profitization of social housing at Heather Place. A disappeared Mount Pleasant outdoor swimming pool. Acting as Council shill-head for the Task Force on Affordable Housing (whatever “affordable” is supposed to mean).

  Now Meggs would like to represent Vancouver-Fairview at the provincial level?

  This is not the first “Geoff Meggs welcoming committee” that has sprung up from local grassroots. On 22 April 2012 about one-quarter as many people turned out at Hillcrest Community Centre for the AGM of the NDP riding association to convey a personal greeting.

  Something seems to be adhering to Geoff Meggs. Could this have anything to do with his four years of serving as the brains and voice that inhabit the Gregor Robertson automaton?

• 90 Julia // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:45 pm

  boohoo, I am not answering you because you are trying to trap me and that is the only purpose for your question.

  You are obviously not interested in the complexities of sustainability.

  The market is always the least intrusive way to manage growth – whether we like it or not. 40,000 people a year arrive in Vancouver every year. Do you honestly think we can keep squeezing together indefinitely to make more room?

• 91 waltyss // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:50 pm

  @terich:
  Intriguing as the article may be, what does it have to do with thin streets or other densification issues?

• 92 boohoo // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:53 pm

  Julia,

  My question is honest. You say ‘when we’re full, we’re full’. How you think we can actually do that is a legit question. It’s easy to say it, but to actually think it out is another.

  As for sustainability, again, you ignore my point regarding infrastructure costs in the region vs Vancouver. It’s like everyone has blinders on when it comes to these things and the fact that decisions made in Vancouver impact the region and vice versa.

• 93 Julia // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:53 pm

  Waltyss #79. Within 16 hours of me posting a link to the FTC website, the site was hacked saying ‘Silence is Golden’.

  Not pointing any fingers but the timing is certainly interesting.

• 94 waltyss // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:55 pm

  @Julia:
  It may be that we reach a level of squeezing that is intolerable. However when you have the extremely low density of the city outside of the downtown peninsula, we have a long way to go before we can honestly say, pull up the barricades, no more room. Your solution seems to be to let the market decide. Well, at the moment the market is deciding and the result is homes that are $1 million + on the west side of the city with unbelievably low density so close to downtown. Name me one other major North American city that shall such extensive low density so close to the downtown core.
  You seem to be saying that we are as dense as we can or should be.

• 95 waltyss // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:58 pm

  @Julia, well you are in fact pointing fingers. So, just for the record, I did not hack the ftc website and in fact would not know how to hack a website if my life depended on it. Nor did I ask or suggest that someone else do it.
  Accusations without an iota of proof is pretty disgusting!

• 96 Julia // Oct 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm

  I am not pointing fingers, I was referencing where I posted the link.

  I am not suggesting we are ‘full’. I am suggesting we approach this in a holistic manner that includes economic analysis. Anything less than that is purely political fluff, and short sighted.

• 97 Higgins // Oct 1, 2012 at 5:30 pm

  Terryrich 89
  good catch. people are waking up to the fact that all this cartoon politicians are a bunch of vote hungry animals. They will show up only when the election time comes. Not before. Not worthy their time.

  Julia 93
  “Within 16 hours of me posting a link to the FTC website, the site was hacked saying ‘Silence is Golden’. ”
  Seriously!?
  Anonymous hackers does not like fair taxation…
  Glissy 84
  “Nowhere in that Report I stumbled across the following: We can’t really address it; It’s a Ponzi Scheme; Prices are Overinflated by 300%; It will cost too much of taxpayers money to implement; We do have Unrealistic Expectations; It’s About Foreign Money & Local Greed; Everyone’s on it as a RBSP – Retirement Based Speculation Plan;… nope, not once.”
  Neither did I!

  MB 87
  “That is patently misleading.”
  I’ll second that.
  No one expects “W” to be an expert in civil works and municipal infrastructure, but like all other Vision hacks… they already know everything!

• 98 Lee L // Oct 1, 2012 at 8:15 pm

  Yes, Waltyss, that is exactly correct. But then, I am interested in how YOU would answer the question. How do you KNOW when you are full? Do you ever get full? or do you continue jamming more and more people and their stuff and their waste into the same former paradise? or do you just keep densifying until the resemblence to a cesspool is no longer deniable by anyone?

  Maybe we are ‘as dense as we should be’… if we wish to preserve the kind of city that brought so many here. As a native Vancouverite, I didnt exactly MOVE here but I did choose not to leave and I know what we have lost already throughout my lifetime.

  You see, Waltyss, you have to stop BEFORE you ‘reach the level of squeezing that is intolerable’. Once you are at that level, you are long past the kind of liveable city core we have now. Long past.

  Build it and they will come. Dont build it and they will go elsewhere. Canada is a very empty place. We need to fill it up.

• 99 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 1, 2012 at 11:01 pm

  Not yet having found the ‘non-billable-time’ to devote to this report, I am beginning to see analysis from those who have.

  NOT-VERY-GOOD. One reviewer observes that the exercise has been turned into a political grab allowing developers have their way.

  Interesting.

  The crux of the mater for this Council going forward—or not—is whether they will strike a vision for Vancouver that is forward-thinking.

  Or whether they will get stuck in the muck of petty politics of the here and now.

  It’s all about ‘pant size’ now, and who has the breeches to pull it off.

• 100 Norman // Oct 2, 2012 at 8:18 am

  How many ways are there to make developers happy? Tear down the viaducts, turn streets into housing, densify, densify. This Council is the most developer-friendly in 50 years. I see a need for regional planning, not a challenge to cram more housing into Vancouver City limits.

• 101 Chris Keam // Oct 2, 2012 at 9:02 am

  Why don’t all the experts on this thread put a number on their opinion? What population density will you stomach for Vancouver? Then we could see who is being realistic and who isn’t.

• 102 boohoo // Oct 2, 2012 at 9:13 am

  Chris,

  Stop trying to trap me into explaining my position.

  

• 103 boohoo // Oct 2, 2012 at 9:41 am

  In all seriousness, who knows what density the City could stomach. I just wonder how you’d ever actually stop people from entering. What I do know is that the vast majority of Vancouver is single family–we are a LONG way away from having to worry about running out of room.

• 104 Frank Ducote // Oct 2, 2012 at 9:49 am

  CK@101 – a much more interesting question is what mix or diversity in this city is preferable, not the absolute number. A city of, say, 75% of households are elderly is substantially and qualitatively different than one with 75% families, as an example. I see a lot of the ideas tilting toward the needs of the latter, whatever the number is.

  To me, I see a lot of the moves being put forward as family- oriented and ground-oriented forms, and located in neighbourhoods already having thoseservices (schools, parks, shops, quiet streets, etc.) that work for them.

  There is also an underlying city-building idea behind it as well, for those wanting “big picture” thinking. Densified transit corridors and vibrant village centres, for example. Transitional densities to sfr areas away from services and transit.

  Personally I am excited by the much-needed and long-overdue attention to the housing needs of younger families and working folks, not just renters and the homeless, and largely outside the downtown core for a change. The latter could stand a lot less of Council’s and developers’ attention for awhile, IMO. Need I mention STIR?

• 105 Jan Pierce // Oct 2, 2012 at 10:33 am

  The Regional Growth Strategy sets out targets for Vancouver for the next 30 years. These are useful in determining how much added capacity we need and how we are doing as a City in terms of meeting the Region’s goals.
  In 2011 Vancouver had around 603,000 people in 286,000 dwelling units. The Regional Growth Strategy says by 2041 they want us to have 740,000 people in 339,500 dwelling units. So, if we decide that these numbers are valid targets, then we are looking at adding 53,000 dwelling units over 30 years.
  The 2011 Census did not include anything on the Cambie corridor, not much in SouthEast False Creek, etc. as these were not finished units.
  If we look at what the City has available, the Cambie corridor has capacity for 13,500 units. The various spot upzonings on the
  West side such as Shannon Mews, Arbutus Mall, etc. provide capacity for about 1600 units. The SouthEast False Creek area (if we add up all the recent rezonings) will have 4000 units. This adds up to about recently added and yet to come capacity for 19,000 units.
  The capacity in the Norquay neighbourhood upzonings needs to be added in. And then we can add in the new capacity for laneway housing units of about 60,000.
  Making it easier and more attractive to add secondary rental suites to our existing houses is another way to increase density and, even better, in the form of dedicated rental units. This also has the potential to add thousands of new units.
  We still are awaiting numbers from the City for already zoned capacity but this number is going to be pretty big.
  Looking at these numbers, its hard to see the rush for increasing zoning capacity such as is being proposed in the report going to Council today.

• 106 Jay // Oct 2, 2012 at 11:31 am

  “Why don’t all the experts on this thread put a number on their opinion? What population density will you stomach for Vancouver? Then we could see who is being realistic and who isn’t.”

  Just for fun…

  Metro Vancouver has about 700 square miles of developable land, and even less if you subtract the ALR and Burns Bog, so for the 44 square miles that make up the City of Vancouver, Downtown densities would be acceptable to me. That would give Vancity a population of 2 million, slightly less than Paris’ 2.2 million at 40 sq. km.

  I’m guessing most people would not be comfortable with that kind of density, but I think most are comfortable with Mt Pleasant (where I live), and Kits type densities. There is a mix of housing types, and enough population to support high quality transit. Kitsilano type density would put the city’s population at 800 000.

• 107 Lee L // Oct 2, 2012 at 11:34 am

  Actually BooHoo…when you say
  “What I do know is that the vast majority of Vancouver is single family–we are a LONG way away from having to worry about running out of room” you are incorrect. Most of Vancouver USED TO BE Single Family zoned, but now it is multifamily zoned but labelled single family.
  See my previous post.

• 108 boohoo // Oct 2, 2012 at 11:42 am

  Lee L,

  I know what you’re getting at, but the notion of ‘single family residences’ was out the window a long time ago thanks to illegal suites. Stop pretending the City is up to some secret game–they are just responding to demands.

  And do you want to answer the question of how we stop people? Or are you cool with just throwing that kind of statement out there with no backing it up too.

• 109 MB // Oct 2, 2012 at 1:22 pm

  Lee L 98:

  How do you KNOW when you are full? Do you ever get full? or do you continue jamming more and more people and their stuff and their waste into the same former paradise? or do you just keep densifying until the resemblence to a cesspool is no longer deniable by anyone?

  That’s a little purple there, Lee.

  Let’s see, London jammed people into the cesspool known as Chelsea a long time ago, like about 1875. It is so bad that today’s council applied modern day heritage restrictions on those absolutely horrid rows of four-level brick terrace houses (you know the ones, they have ugly white terracotta trim, visually assaulting bay windows, ostentatious front gates and piers, walled back yards and shops — heaven forbid! — just down at the end of the street) just to preserve the slum for all to learn from.

  And learn they did! The stunningly beautiful alternatives were the result of the deep intellectual analysis of the terrace house ghettos of old — and there they are, proudly piercing the sky in their naked grey concrete glory.

  Artists and muscians live there! They display their works-in-a-can in the stairwells and halls and give impromtu concerts at full volume into the night through open windows, the sound of several hundred banging heads keeping time.

  Who needs the corporate graffiti of fluorescent back-lit signs when you’ve got Krylon?

  The single family detached home is now relegated to the countryside and are so expensive even the Lords can’t aford them and turn to the National Trust to subsidize their remaining wealth.

  London learned several lifetimes ago that a crisis of affordability was a natural progression or urbanization and land availibility, and stove to live more efficiently on a limited land base.

  Affordability is a function of land value.

• 110 gasp // Oct 2, 2012 at 2:37 pm

  Vancouver residents have been repeatedly told that density is “good” for the environment and necessary for the City to be affordable.

  Yet the empirical evidence is now showing that many of the urban planning theories that Vancouver is pursuing are having the opposite effect, see:
  http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/09/a-dense-idea/

  Perhaps it’s time to stop setting up blanket policies based on planning theories (“density everywhere and anywhere is good”) that have a detrimental effect on the environment, our health, our communities and businesses and the City as a whole.

• 111 teririch // Oct 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm

  Just tried to send a tweet in response to comments made in Council Coverage and with respect to housing the homeless only to find that I have now been blocked by Vision Vancouver.

  Oh, and all of Councillor Stevenson’s tweet history has been erased. Kind of like just after the election, resident (paid) pit-bull Jonathan Ross erased all of his tweet history……see a pattern here folks?

  Democracy cubed!

• 112 MB // Oct 2, 2012 at 4:05 pm

  @ gasp 110, from the McLean’s article:

  Vancouver is perhaps Canada’s starkest example of what happens to real estate when a city becomes a place where everyone wants to live. But urban planners across the country are singularly focused on ending sprawl. The irony is that the current obsession with smart growth may just become one more thing that pushes us, our families and our jobs, even farther into the burbs.

  The central problem with the article is, in fact, how it uses a blanket critique of a theory for all cities … just what you accuse planners of doing.

  The article goes out of its way to knock down smart growth without supplying a viable alternative other than to continue business-as-usual.

  Meanwhile, affordability challenges and growth issues continue on their merry way storming down every metropolitan area they mentioned, even, ironically, in cities that have not adopted smart growth.

  Here’s what the first statement should read to reflect Vancouver’s specific circumstances:

  Vancouver is perhaps Canada’s starkest example of what happens to real estate when a city becomes a place where everyone wants to live but find only a greatly diminshed amount of available land.

  What do you propose, gasp, to maintain current densities but still allow new residents to live here? It seems to me your options in Vancouver would be limited to:

  a) leveling the North Shore mountains
  b) filling in English Bay with the rubble
  c) eradicating the ALR
  d) eradicating protected habitat areas, streams, parks and golf courses
  e) building the Great Wall of Vancouver to stop in-migration (or erect a massive tax barrier)
  f) a combination of any of the above

  I suggest only e) has the ability to immediately lower property values …er, increase affordability until such time such a tolitarian law like that is shot down by the inevitable constitutional challenges.

  The fact Vancouver still has 647m2 lots, a size McLeans claims is typical in suburbia — i.e. over 50 km2 of detached homes on full lots — tells us that none of the above options are necessary.

  One time Vancouver resembled suburbia, now it’s changing into a city. The suburbs will become cities too one day. Surrey, Coquitlam, Burnaby and New West are already on their way. And the only way to do it without resorting to the alternatives listed above is to increase density.

  To me this isn’t hard. The real question here should be: Will our neighbourhoods be more beautiful after accepting their fair share of growth, and will they serve most if not all of our needs?

  In Calgary the solution is simple: consume 10,000 hectares of agricultural land at the periphery at a time and build mind-bogglingly huge subdivisions half-filled with ostentatious, self-indulgent monster homes with cheesy, cheaply-executed faux references to every historic architectural icon in history. The other half of these newer subdivisions is mediocrity on steroids.

  Then establish a generous $10,000 per house per annum subsidy by inner city folks to bring roads, utilties, schools, police, ambulance and fire services to the outer edge.

  The article doesn’t address energy, which economists are usually ignorant of, yet it underlies almost every aspect of the economy. The waste of resources (see surplus square footage noted above) and the act of using public funds to build and maintain a massive infrastructure to move cars on extraordinarily vast acreages of land instead of moving people undercuts the ability to change until the price of energy goes up. Commuters and empty nesters stuck in their plaster palaces a km from bread and milk and 50 km from emplyment feel it first.

  Abbotsford, Chilliwack and Coquitlam are not willing to scrape their agricultural lands clean for cheap plastic houses built for people willing to spend 7,000 hours a year behind the wheel.

  Therein, we have more density around the corner, and there ain’t much we can do about it except shape it to create better communities.

• 113 teririch // Oct 2, 2012 at 6:17 pm

  This is interesting: Take from The Province – Oct. 2

  …… Seniors’ Opportunity

  Deputy city manager David McLellan said the city sees rezoning in areas like Dunbar as an opportunity for seniors to sell their old homes, so that they may downsize into new smaller homes or new seniors’ housing projects.

  In an interview, Dunbar resident Liz O’Malley said she is concerned that one such proposal for a six-storey seniors’ home is already being pushed forward with little consultation.

  Dunbar Backlash

  “The response in Dunbar has been incredible in the last week,” O’Malley said. “People are upset about the whole density thing being done without consultation.”

  On Tuesday, Vision Vancouver councillors sought to allay concerns that rezoning would be rammed through. Each and every proposal under the “interim rezoning” plan would go to public hearing, McLellan said, in response to council questions.

  McLellan admitted outside council that the city can’t predict how providing certain numbers of new townhouses and row houses will impact the broad housing market.

  “The market will decide what the price is,” McLellan said.

  Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Housing+task+force+Vancouver+council+braces+density+opposition/7334166/story.html#ixzz28C7U27io

• 114 Everyman // Oct 2, 2012 at 7:04 pm

  It was pointed out on another blog, but one of the reasons Vancouver scores well in the Economist’s most livable cities survey is because it is medium (not high) density.

• 115 gasp // Oct 2, 2012 at 8:56 pm

  MB:

  This whole affordable housing through densification process is based on the FALSE assumption that Vancouver’s high property prices are due to a shortage of land. The main factor that has caused Vancouver prices to increase for the past 10 years has been speculative demand driven by federal monetary and immigration policies. That is why the federal government has recently:

  a) returned the amortization of mortgages back to 25 years;
  b) required the banks to adopt strict new lending standards by the end of this year, which will require, inter alia, all those seeking a mortgage in Canada to prove their ability to pay and their source of income through their CRA tax assessments;
  c) effectively shut down the immigrant investor program;
  d) started to use the CRA to go after the gains from property speculation, including the selling of “assignments” without claiming the income gains;
  e) started to use the CRA to go after unclaimed offshore income, which is fully taxable under Canadian law;
  f) started to implement a tracking system, to determine whether the immigrant investors are actually living in Canada or working tax-free offshore.

  Vancouver’s huge property bubble is finally starting to pop – and prices will be heading on a downward trend for the forseeible future.

  The 2011 Census apparently confirmed that Vancouver currently has 22,000 unoccupied residential housing units. As prices head south, the “investors” who speculated on the continued price appreciation of these units will be dumping them, as will those who find themselves underwater.

  IF Vancouver had some businesses (other than real estate development and sales, and money laundering) that attracted people who wanted to come here and work to make this City an economic powerhouse, then densification to provide housing for more people would be justified. But densification to satisfy speculative investment driven by monetary policy is not necessary or justifiable.

  Perhaps this is why Mark Carney has said that Canada needs people to invest in productive businesses, not to build more condos or houses.

• 116 Jay // Oct 2, 2012 at 9:32 pm

  If Vancouver real estate was driven mostly by speculation, there would have been a massive sell-off months ago. People are still lining up to buy condo’s. They must be the worlds dumbest speculators.

• 117 waltyss // Oct 2, 2012 at 11:02 pm

  @teririch. I live in Dunbar and am all over the neighbourhood. I can say with a great deal of certainty that very few people were talking about thin streets. For one, at least at this time, it is not being proposed for Dunbar.
  As for density along Dunbar Street, Dunbar residents are the champions of nimbyism. It has been one area in the city that had no, I repeat, no social housing. Many locals attacked the housing for mentally ill seniors at 16th and Dunbar. It was shocking and while I am not overall a fan of Suzanne Anton’s, I admired her courage when she stood up to Dunbarites, called them out on their selfishness and told them they were getting some social housing. I was not proud of my neighbours in that incident.
  The Province is good at riling up the seniors. The problem in Dunbar of course has long been that as seniors get old and not able to stay in their homes, they have had nowhere to go in their neighbourhood because there is no seniors housing or condominiums or other forms, beyond SFR in the area. In the last several years that is starting to change.
  As for those who think off shore buyers are responsible for Vancouver’s high prices, well that is simply not the case. While it is annoying to have empty houses sit, and I fully support either banning non resident owners or taxing them at a higher rate, the fact is that even if every foreign owned empty house were filled, it would do little to put a dent in Vancouver affordability.
  @MB. Thanks for taking apart the Maclean’s article. I found it amusing that the author saw no difference between kids in smart communities who played outdoors more and those in typical suburbs who played more indoors.
  I guess they did not measure the effect on kids or parents between those parents who spend more time with their kids when they live closer to work and those parents spending an hour or more each way sucking up exhaust on the freeways our provincial government is fond of building to get people to and from the burbs.
  Moreover Toronto and Calgary can sprawl away to their hearts content; we do have natural barriers like the ocean, the mountains. ALR and the border.

• 118 Lee L // Oct 2, 2012 at 11:22 pm

  @MB
  What the f/&(/& to we care what London did, I mean really.

  London is not placed on the edge of an EMPTY HALF OF NORTH AMERICA.

  And it seems to me, you didnt answer the question as to what constitutes full. Is `full` when MB thinks we are closely enough aligned with the configuration in a country half a world away, and easily full x 100 of people living in the streets, renting their whole lives away and paying government to be allowed to enter the hallowed domain with an evil carriage. Where did you come from MB. Are you born in this town and do you know anything of it`s true spirit. Or are you importing ideas from a dying country, drowning in debt, or maybe from a global `movement`that has decided it knows better.

  I dont want the life that LONDON offers. I dont WANT to pay government to move around, and I do want to keep my birthplace the beautiful and pleasant place it has been my whole life. I dont see density providing any of that.

• 119 Chris Keam // Oct 3, 2012 at 6:37 am

  “I dont see density providing any of that.”

  Where there is sprawl, you won’t find much of the beauty and pleasantness that makes for ‘Beautiful BC’. But with so many people reading this blog, what a great place to provide a workable, equitable solution rather than just complaints.

• 120 Chris Keam // Oct 3, 2012 at 6:44 am

  “do you know anything of it`s true spirit”

  Booze, women, lumber, racism, and dashed dreams of gold field riches are what built this town.

• 121 teririch // Oct 3, 2012 at 6:46 am

  @waltyss #117:

  Didn’t knew social housing units open at Dumbar and 17th…last fall? There had been somehwat recent coverage, a ribbon cutting where Harcourt attended.

  I’ve run into residents on the bus.

  As for NIBYism – I don’t blame people. Should this move forward, those homeowners are now looking at a loss in value of their property.

  Funny, I was reading tweet feed put out by the mayor talking about the importance about protecting the trees and yet…depending on area, this would speak to the complete opposite.

  And what is with the possibility of removing small green spaces in order to slap up row homes?

• 122 teririch // Oct 3, 2012 at 6:51 am

  You have to love Bruce Allen:

  He sums it up almost as well as Glissy!

  http://www.cknw.com/shows/reality_check.aspx

• 123 boohoo // Oct 3, 2012 at 7:21 am

  @Lee

  I didn’t ask for MB’s opinion, I asked for yours. You seem unwilling to give it, and come across as just an angry person yelling at the wind.

• 124 waltyss // Oct 3, 2012 at 10:42 am

  @teririch; The social housing unit at Dunbar and 17th (you are right that it opens onto 17th, not 16th) has been open for about 6 months and Mike Harcourt was very involved wih bringing it abou and has donated money from his parents estate for it.
  However, my point is that it is a singular success story in the face of the really embarassing nimbyism of Dunbar. Can I blame them (us as I am a resident)? Yes, absolutely.
  It displays a shocking and selfish “I’m all right, Jack” kind of attitude. It displays the “pull up the drawbridge ” attitude so perfectly exemplified by Lee L in his hostility to any change or any recognition that the past is not a sustainable future. And so they will oppose densification within 100 meters of Dunbar for god’s sake. Really? They will claim that high taxes are driving them out of their $1 million + homes when most of them, if 55 or over can defer those taxes. They will seldom visit their children who are forced to live in Langley.
  And yet in some many ways I love my neighbourhood.
  As for driving down property values, it will affect the values of people next to a new “thin street”. Those people should be compensated for lost value and one way may be purchasing the present corner lots, adding it to the new city lot and creating row housing. However, because of land values in Dunbar, I will be surprised if they come to Dunbar anytime soon.

• 125 waltyss // Oct 3, 2012 at 10:43 am

  @teririch: When you resort to quoting the professional wrestling mouth, you know you are running out of anything constructive to say.

• 126 Higgins // Oct 3, 2012 at 10:51 am

  Hey guys, here’s a good answer to that Task Force Report…
  I’ll copy-paste a dialog on twitter between Michael Geller and Jon McComb. Enjoy!

  “Michael Geller ‏@michaelgeller
  Surprised by @jonmccomb980 ranting about Mayor’s Task Force report. He like many others either doesn’t really understand or doesn’t want to!”

  “Jon McComb ‏@jonmccomb980

  @michaelgeller Tough to back a proposal to change the face of a city with minimal public discussion/input.”

  I guess it’s self explanatory Michael!
  After you’ve tried so hard to get the attention of His Worship and His Vision acolytes, then serve him/them with so much passion, to the point that you forgot that once you were a candidate for … the opposition, it’s no wonder people respond like that.
  What hurts BTW is the fact that you ARE wrong, and that report is another wasted time and energy on paper.
  “Consultation was the Election, this is the Delivery” by Geoff Meggs.
  I cannot agree more with that. That’s exactly what happened.
  That report is a bureaucrat’s dream. Nothing more nothing less.

• 127 Higgins // Oct 3, 2012 at 11:08 am

  Ha, ha teririch @122 thanks for that link!
  Guess what, you’re right, Glissy … IS better!
  To his defense Bruce Allen had only 1.42 min to express … how me and my neighbors here in Oakridge feel too.

• 128 MB // Oct 3, 2012 at 12:00 pm

  @ gasp 115:

  Vancouver’s huge property bubble is finally starting to pop – and prices will be heading on a downward trend for the forseeible future.

  If there was a property bubble it would’ve popped in 2008 when the second deepest financial crisis and recession in a century took its toll. And in the US that was all about rampant speculation and fancy ways to package debt.

  In Greater Vancouver property values climbed by 350% in some areas, and by well over 250% in most others in a decade. In 2008 they dipped by about 15%, then recovered. Now they’re dipping again as sales decrease.

  But decreasing by 350%? I highly doubt it.

  Vancouver is simply a very desireable place to live (read: Demand) with an extreme shortage of housing alternatives between an expensive full lot and condos (read: Supply).

  Supply and demand. No more, no less.

• 129 MB // Oct 3, 2012 at 12:14 pm

  @ Lee L 118:

  What the f/&(/& to we care what London did, I mean really.

  Hmmm.

  Evidently you don’t seem to understand satire.

  Chelsea is a very desireable place to live with, in my view, very respectful and high quality urbanism. There are few single family detached houses there, meaning you don’t need them to create viable and humanely scaled neighhbourhoods with amenities close by.

  Obviously you missed the point. Terrace houses (or row houses) offer a deeply flexible middle alternative between detached houses saddled with an overly expensive chunk of land and condos.

  It’s expensive, though, but then again there are similar communities a little further away with similar housing at half the price.

  I won’t touch the rest of your invective.

• 130 Mira // Oct 3, 2012 at 12:24 pm

  Higgins 126
  I don’t know why people are giving so much credit and attention to Michael Geller. Pencil pusher for one government entity or another for decades, he’s doing what he’s doing best, writing reports and “creating” rules.
  FYI, here’s what he said re. corner lot owners
  “If the corner lot owner said ‘hell, no, we don’t want to be here perhaps the city could acquire or facilitate a developer acquiring their lot and then city could combine the two lots into one and that would be big enough to put townhouses on.”
  Here’s the whole thing:
  http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/391475/thin-streets-have-corner-lot-owners-worried/
  How despicable is that?
  Basically what he said is that EXPROPRIATION with compensation is just fine! Where are this owners going to move, and why? Screw them! They are not on… his island!
  How would you like the city to tell you to pack and move from your little paradise MG?
  People should stop listen to hypocrites. That’s all.
  Then read this:
  “The 17-member task force recommended six priority actions and nine additional actions in its final report released last week, which was the result of 10 months of study and public consultations.”
  TEN MONTHS of study and “public consultation” LOL!
  To put together a report and template for future legislation that as David McLellan is saying:
  “McLellan did his best to assure Grigg that no one would be forced into anything if the task force’s recommendations were to go ahead, and all standard rezoning procedures, including hearings, would still apply.”
  So NO ONE will be forced and all this TaskForce Report & recommendations will amount to… NOTHING!
  I rest my case.

• 131 MB // Oct 3, 2012 at 12:30 pm

  @ gasp 115:

  The 2011 Census apparently confirmed that Vancouver currently has 22,000 unoccupied residential housing units.

  I suppose my 340 sf basement suite is one of them. It has a sloped floor and low ceilings. We stopped renting it after six years and it truly was a mortgage helper.

  Dealing with tenants was not a pleasant experience. Now it’s a storage unit and a guest room. But it’s there if we need some supplemental income in retirement.

  This is only to say that “22,000 unoccupied residential units” doesn’t exactly tally up to the empty foreign-owned houses you imply it does.

• 132 MB // Oct 3, 2012 at 12:42 pm

  @ Mira, you are so far over the top about M. Geller.

  He and I have crossed paths a couple of times and never has he been a part of a government. He was always representing his private sector developer clients. One day I’ll let out a couple of stories.

  He did serve for a few years in the CMHC early in his career, but I really don’t see his very refined sense of independence confined by a pencil-necked bureaucracy.

  Regarding corner lots, no where was “expropriation” used. That’s your word, Mira. Expropriation happens in exceedingly rare occasions today and is often related to large public projects, not corner lots and middling developers.

  The owners of corner lots would instead be subjected to multiple offers and requests to negotiate. I would hope it wouldn’t be over that very conceptual and poorly thought out thin streets idea.

• 133 Lee L // Oct 3, 2012 at 12:51 pm

  The ‘solution’, Chris, is to put these ideas whose implementation would effect extreme changes in the character of the city to a referendum and abide by the result. If most people who actually live here today WANT the character of the city to change in the direction of more and more crowding, then change it must and those of us who don’t want that to happen, just have to get used to it or move out. Those who DO want it to densify endlessly, need to be shown what they are asking for. In no community plan do you see a sustainable vision. There is no community plan that has written in it, the idea that ‘sustainable’ inevitably requires definition of a point where enough is enough, and the place is full. I may not be like yourself, who seems to believe that infinite growth in density ( or population) and a liveable city can coexist.

  Vision Vancouver managed to win a mandate to govern for a few years. That isn’t a mandate to raze the place. For that you would need a referendum, and for this idea ( and lane housing too by the way) you should also need a referendum.
  As for me, I don’t see the tenements of New York or London being a desireable recasting of my neighbourhood, nor, apparently, have they turned out to be affordable.

• 134 teririch // Oct 3, 2012 at 12:56 pm

  @Mira:

  Wasn’t Mr. Geller on this ‘task force” – or am I wrong?

  (Sorry, cannot remember)

• 135 boohoo // Oct 3, 2012 at 1:05 pm

  Lee,

  Again you say ‘a point where enough is enough, and the place is full.’

  Are you going to explore this or just throw it out there?

  “Vision Vancouver managed to win a mandate to govern for a few years. That isn’t a mandate to raze the place.”

  Can we get a mandate to stop overblown, ridiculous exaggerations to prove a point?

• 136 Frank Ducote // Oct 3, 2012 at 1:11 pm

  Michael Geller led a separate but related round table on built form options, i.e., building types.

• 137 teririch // Oct 3, 2012 at 1:17 pm

  @Frank Ducote #136

  Thank you.

• 138 brilliant // Oct 3, 2012 at 2:59 pm

  @waltsyss 124-it is precisely because property values are high that thin streets will come to Dunbar. When Gregory cabal realizes the price they can get for that 25′ frontal from a family anxious to get their kudos into St.Georges or PW, corner lots in Dunbar and Mackenzie Heights will disappear so fact it will make your head spin.

  And you’ll get exactly the same compensation as victims of Vision’s Podium bombs – Zilch!

• 139 Lee L // Oct 3, 2012 at 2:59 pm

  Ok Boohoo.
  It is kind of like Chris Keam might say when, arguing in favour of more and more bike infrastructure,he tells us that building more roads to reduce ‘congestion’ will not solve ‘the problem’ since it has been proven over and over again that roads only fill up again and we will be back where we started. Tell me, what is the difference between that and building more and more dwellings by densifying in response to projected growth in the region? Isn’t the whole purpose of building them to fill them up with people? And then, will not the expected growth in the region be even more likely to materialize and force us back again looking for ‘the solution’ which will be, of course, as we will have already proven in the past, be again to ‘ Densify! Densify! ‘.

  My solution, since you asked, is to choose to STOP and not to continue round the infinite loop. If we dont do that, then the infinite loop will, over years, erase even the memory of the liveable neighbourhoods we once had. That’s ok with some people … it’s not ok with me.

  It might not be this year or next year, but ultimately you have to STOP and recognize that if you don’t, it means you have endorsed an unsustainable ‘solution’ which can be described as planning for infinite growth. I believe that is what Vision Vancouver is doing. With a hat tip to Chris Keam, I think I will call their plan ‘DENSIFICATION SPRAWL’.
  I support stopping sooner rather than later because that makes it nicer in the city for me.

  I do not believe tent cities will arise due to multitudes of people still wanting to move to Metro Vancouver. I don’t believe we will see a huge increase in homeless families who, having moved here, are unable to find a place to live so they are camping in the streets. By the way, you WILL find this in New York and London no matter how their urban density ‘solution’ is touted by the urban Greenfolk.

  I believe that left to itself, without interference from the government, the demand for existing housing will be factored in to where businesses and people who work in them locate and they will go to Surrey or Delta or further from downtown ( as they already have) and that is just fine. You can live near where you work in Surrey, or Delta or New Westminster or Langley. The lower mainland as a whole, DOES HAVE affordable housing in these areas, but you have to be willing to live in it. Don’t be surprised, in view of that, if I am not ok with it when my neighbourhood is a sacrificial puzzle piece in an unsustainable ‘solution’.

• 140 brilliant // Oct 3, 2012 at 3:02 pm

  Damn predictive text! Gregor’s cabal and kids into St.Georges!

• 141 boohoo // Oct 3, 2012 at 4:13 pm

  Lee,

  I understand what you want to do, but how is the question.

  How do you just stop people from moving in? Does the City shut down development? Build a moat? Fence?

  What are the implications of that? Your rant is fun, but logistically swiss cheese.

• 142 Lee L // Oct 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm

  Stop people from moving in to what?

• 143 Frank Ducote // Oct 3, 2012 at 4:45 pm

  Lee L. – as loath as I am to step into this endless and useless circle, even the most restrictive regimes in the world have not been able to control unwanted influx of population into cities where people want to go, most notably Moscow. In LA people live in garages if nothing else is available. Or nearby canyons , as in San Diego. So restricting supply, as you suggest, cannot alone stop an influx. Making a place so totally undesirable to live or work in, well, that might do it, like Detroit. I don’t know many people who would like that alternative. It does leave a lot of room for the remaining population, however.

• 144 Westender1 // Oct 3, 2012 at 5:14 pm

  Apparently a map was shown in Council today showing the potential areas for rezoning along arterials. You can see (part of) it at this link:

  http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/392396/rezoning-map-to-identify-areas-that-could-see-new-6-storey-developments/

  I don’t recall this map being published as part of the consultation process on the proposals of the Affordable Housing Task Force.

• 145 boohoo // Oct 3, 2012 at 5:55 pm

  Lee/Frank,

  I’m not trying to spin this in circles, but he and Julia have both made this claim that we should just somehow stop people from moving here. I’m asking to back it up with some thought. Neither of them have. I guess that’s my answer.

• 146 Frank Ducote // Oct 3, 2012 at 7:07 pm

  Boohoo – understood. Probably time to leave it alone, IMO.

  Thanks for the useful link, Westie.

• 147 Chris Keam // Oct 3, 2012 at 8:30 pm

  @LeeL:

  You said (to me):
  “I may not be like yourself, who seems to believe that infinite growth in density ( or population) and a liveable city can coexist.”

  Really? Where from my tiny contributions to this thread would you ever leap to such an erroneous conclusion? All I’m asking is that the pro-density and con-density advocates put a number on their ideal population density. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the numbers aren’t so terribly far apart once we put down the rhetorical blunt instruments, and then we might just have some room for compromise.

  One thing is for sure. No city exists in stasis. We can optimize for what (or who) is coming, but pulling up the drawbridge isn’t a realistic or fair option. Of course people want to come here to live. Let’s deal with reality and find something resembling a workable solution.

• 148 Jay // Oct 3, 2012 at 9:31 pm

  http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/392396/rezoning-map-to-identify-areas-that-could-see-new-6-storey-developments/

  If I’m reading this map correctly, basically every arterial street in Vancouver could potentially be redeveloped.

• 149 Julia // Oct 3, 2012 at 10:04 pm

  Boohoo, go back and read what I said. I did not say stop letting people move here. I said, let the market sort out the supply and demand issue. As long as we create supply – it will be scooped up. As long as it is scooped up, we will be pressed to find more supply.

  We can’t build a fence and we can satisfy the need. So, what do YOU suggest.

• 150 Chris Keam // Oct 3, 2012 at 10:33 pm

  Housing is a basic human right. I’m not so sure it’s the best place to let the market (exclusively) sort out supply and demand issues. We might be better off examining our preconceptions about what constitutes an ideal housing situation and remembering that the nuclear family and single family homes are essentially aberrations in human history. Most of the time we’ve shared space and lived in close proximity to each other. If we are serious about maintaining overall quality of life in the province, it will probably be necessary to cozy up to our neighbours a bit more for those who live in urban areas. And if you don’t want to do that, work hard, make lots of money, and do as you please. It was ever thus.

• 151 Everyman // Oct 3, 2012 at 10:55 pm

  The arterial plan will lead to some very dreary streets. Walls of 6 story condos, similar to Kingsway but on steroids. Ever notice how these new developments tend to have the most uninteresting and predicatble assortment of retail: a Subway; a nail bar; a sushi restaurant.

  However, I believe it will be a long time in coming. IMHO everyone is underestimating the effect of our recent real estate bubble which is now shuddering to a halt. For every Marine Gateway, there are three developments still desperatley and quietly peddling units months later.

• 152 Julia // Oct 4, 2012 at 9:32 am

  Chris – if this was the only city in the country to work in and live in – I might agree with you – but it’s not. We can enjoy the same quality of life (perhaps even better) in endless other places that offer similar tax rates, health care, job opportunities, air quality, social justice etc.

  If people really insist on living in Vancouver – they will need to measure that desire against the realities of what it costs to do so.

• 153 Frank Ducote // Oct 4, 2012 at 9:48 am

  Julia – Vancouver Metro is the only large city/region in Canada with an average winter temperture above 0 degrees Celsius. Given this, I don’t think there are “endless other places” in the country that can meet this fundamental aspect of quality of life.

• 154 waltyss // Oct 4, 2012 at 9:54 am

  @ Julia: the attitude of people like you and several others on this thread is the “i’m all right, Jack, pull up the drawbridge approach.” I doubt most people agree with you, even in the right wing NPA.
  This city can be much more densely populated and make room just for our children, never mind those interlopers arriving from elsewhere.
  While some of the ideas being proposed do not appeal to me, I give the Council credit for at least trying to come up with ideas for greater density and accordingly greater affordability.
  There will be the usual boo birds who either will oppose anything this city council proposes or who want to keep things just the way they are. Fine. Most others will try to understand, suggest alternatives or improvements to what is proposed. An example in that category is Michael Geller who I noticed yesterday was being pilloried by some of the usual suspects because he had the temerity to see merit in some of the proposals.
  it’s a sad commentary on the blogosphere.

• 155 West End Gal // Oct 4, 2012 at 12:10 pm

  “The owners of corner lots would instead be subjected to multiple offers and requests to negotiate. ”
  MB, in my book this would be called persuasive harassment and intimidation by authority. Even if it wasn’t called as such in the initial piece “Expropriation for Public Utility’ rings a bell?
  It’s exactly what it is proposed, only nicer and in more evasive terms. Ask any corner lot owner what they think, then do tell.

• 156 teririch // Oct 4, 2012 at 12:17 pm

  @West End Gal #155:

  I believe home owners in the Cambie corridor area felt the same pressures ‘to sell up’ when the Canada Line went and and developers were looking at cashing in.

• 157 MB // Oct 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm

  @ WEG 155, outright expropriation is in an entirely different legal ballpark than “intimidation by authority.”

  Entire blocks may on occasion come under siege by developer’s dragons for a large project, but I hardly think the owners of corner lots will receive similar treatment.

  What I do foresee is entire blocks coming under siege for weeks by excavators and Engineering Dept. trailers and F-bombing workers at 7 a.m. (my own recent experience) to shift sewers and water mains a few metres over at great cost if ‘thin streets’ is approved.

  After that will come the tree chippers, then the construction crews, then the sales reps who will undercut the neighbour’s private property values by offering land leases on public street land to new residents in new rowhouses or condos 4-feet from the front fence line of existing neighbours. Well, they may keep the sidewalk in place

  Land availability is the real issue here and the city is fishing around for “free” land by turning its gaze to the land occupied by roads, and totally forgetting their function as conduits for utilities. It would be far easier to build parks and lease out allotment gardens on roads than to build houses on them.

  Promoting ‘thin streets’ housing is a much easier path for the politicos who are weak-kneed when it comes to addressing the zoning of existing single-family detached lots beyond lane houses.

  Of the ~50 square km of single-family lots in the city, about 22% of the land is locked up in generous frontyard and sideyard setbacks. We’re talking about 11,000,000 square metres (2,700+ acres) of land here. If we could only tap half that for rowhousing or duplexes or low rises, then we’re off to a good start.

  I still say use public land very sparingly, if at all, and offer low-rate leases only to subsidized housing, not to private buyers.

• 158 Higgins // Oct 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm

  MB 157 sad thing is you are right but so are WEG & Mira. The only ones who’ll suffer and fight with stress and depression are going to ber the people falling under the new “rules”
  Look what happens(ed) at @Little Mountain Housing Coop (look at the way it was dealt with, a most unforgivable renoviction, look at where the former tenants are now (nowhere) and watch this video

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOyzaM1b9o0

  This is what Vision, Robertson and City of Vancouver is preparing for the unprepared.
  Thank god if you are not one of them!

• 159 Jay // Oct 4, 2012 at 6:46 pm

  It’s starting to sound like Fox News around here.

• 160 Everyman // Oct 4, 2012 at 7:08 pm

  The more I hear about this idea, the worse it sounds. If the city really needs to increase the land available for housing why don’t they:
  a) Pass a bylaw forcing gas station owners to remediate their vacant lots within a year.
  b) Pass minimum zoning laws. There’s a very nice, shiny, new empty 1 story with mezzanine retail complex at Main & Broadway – why was such a low density structure allowed to be built at the confluence of transit routes while Rize-Alliance’s monster was forced on residents just a block away?
  c) As someobody else said, let CPR build housing on the Arbutus right of way.
  d) Lobby hard to get the province to redevelop the appallingly low density George Pearson rehabilitation site: 7.7 hecatres for 120 residents? It can be done smarter.

• 161 Jay // Oct 4, 2012 at 7:56 pm

  Idea b makes sense. Why have low density housing along high frequency bus routes like 41st and 49th.

  Everybody is so against concentrating density in one spot, with high density and tall towers, such as with Rize at Broadway and Kingsway – so now here’s a plan to spread the density evenly throughout the city with low rise buildings. A plan that would integrate density very seamlessly, and still people complain.

  We are way past the point of band aid solutions.

• 162 Chris Keam // Oct 4, 2012 at 9:10 pm

  “let CPR build housing on the Arbutus right of way.”

  My understanding regarding that parcel of (formerly public) land is that it was given to the railroad to operate as a railroad corridor. If the company no longer wishes to use it as such, in my opinion it should revert back to public land, and then if it is to be sold off, the taxpayer receives some benefit. Having said that, IMO it would be better to keep it and repurpose as a transit/greenway corridor. Density is low enough in those neighbourhoods that there’s plenty of capacity before we need to encroach on those relatively uninterrupted ribbons of land that are ideal for turning into LRT corridors.

• 163 Lee L // Oct 5, 2012 at 12:50 am

  Densification Sprawl….A future Vision

  … English Bay?

  http://ca.news.yahoo.com/photos/world-s-20-economically-strongest-cities-1347961034-slideshow/world-s-20-economically-strongest-cities-photo-1347960562.html

• 164 Lee L // Oct 5, 2012 at 12:52 am

  Ooops..
  http://ca.news.yahoo.com/photos/world-s-20-economically-strongest-cities-1347961034-slideshow/world-s-20-economically-strongest-cities-photo-1347960562.html

  Photo 3

• 165 Morven // Oct 5, 2012 at 9:03 am

  I wonder if the authors of the report ever thought that their tactics are equivalent to the old developers trick of block busting to free up land/houses for redevelopment.
  -30-

• 166 gasp // Oct 5, 2012 at 1:47 pm

  Chris Keam @162:

  Your understanding regarding the Arbutus right of way is incorrect. That land is and always has been the private property of the CPR. It was part of the original land grant contractually given to the CPR (a private company) by the Province of B.C. as compensation for building the railway through to (what is now) the City of Vancouver.

  The City zoned that land as a “transportation corridor” in order to stop the CPR from using it for any other purpose. While the City was entitled to zone it as such, it is not entitled to use it for anything without either purchasing the land or obtaining the CPR’s agreement. In addition, since the land is a railway right of way, its use is governed by federal legislation.

  The current market value of that land is probably about $350 – 400 million. Given the losses from the Olympic Village, it is unlikely the City has the money to purchase that land now or in the immediate future.

• 167 Lee L // Oct 5, 2012 at 11:21 pm

  “One thing is for sure. No city exists in stasis. We can optimize for what (or who) is coming, but pulling up the drawbridge isn’t a realistic or fair option. Of course people want to come here to live. Let’s deal with reality and find something resembling a workable solution.”

  One thing for sure … huh.. talk about rhetorically blunt.

  Take ALL your arguments and substitute the word Detroit for the word Vancouver.
  Then…
  Reevaluate.

• 168 Everyman // Oct 6, 2012 at 8:22 am

  @Chris Keam 162
  With the decision to align the Canada Line along Cambie St, the need to preserve the Arbutus Corridor for transport was nullified. The low density, with no major transit traffic drivers along the route means it could be served as well with busses on Arbutus. But it would make sense to include a bikeway with future residential development there.

• 169 Jay // Oct 6, 2012 at 12:09 pm

  gasp – “The current market value of that land is probably about $350 – 400 million. Given the losses from the Olympic Village, it is unlikely the City has the money to purchase that land now or in the immediate future.”

  The Arbutus CPR land amounts to 45 acres. If it is zoned strictly as a transportation corridor, how could it possibly be worth that much?

• 170 gasp // Oct 6, 2012 at 3:07 pm

  Jay @69:

  You’ll have to ask BC Assessment Authority about that one!

• 171 Nelson100 // Oct 9, 2012 at 4:05 am

  I have been harping on the need to get away from dropping 50 story sterile glass air conditioned luxury towers in neighborhoods that don’t want them or suit them and look at other densification alternatives. My viewpoint stems from the fact that Vancouver is not the size of Tokyo, Seoul or even Toronto, and that last time I checked, our huge empty nation wasn’t quite facing the same space shortage as, say, Hong Kong. I also contend that Vancouverites have not been so much opposing density as to the glass tower form that keeps getting robotically imposed.

  While I’m skeptical that Vision would actually refrain from imposing a chosen project on a neighborhood that they didn’t want it (I’ll need to see that to believe it), I concede that the thin streets initiative seems to be an attempt to look at densifications options other than towers, so I am in favor of at least studying it further.

• 172 Nelson100 // Oct 9, 2012 at 4:22 am

  To Lee L #167 – Here’s another spin. Take everyone’s arguments and now substitute the word Manila. I’ve spent time there. Developers rule there and the gawdawful result is a cautionary tale for reckless development. Have a look:

  http://cache.virtualtourist.com/6/4567211-Manila_Skyline_City_of_Manila.jpg

• 173 West End Gal // Oct 10, 2012 at 11:08 am

  Nelson 100 @171
  Right on, buddy boy!
  “While I’m skeptical that Vision would actually refrain from imposing a chosen project on a neighborhood that they didn’t want it (I’ll need to see that to believe it)”
  Me too!

Leave a Comment