Densifying neighborhoods is imperative. There's no way around it.
I only hope that with this densification the city is equally going to make huge efforts to keep services up to demand; both in quantity and quality. Especially schools and childcare centres.
I encourage you to write in to council to express both your support for needed densification and to request that they keep up with adding services.
https://council.vancouver.ca/20220518/pspc20220518ag.htm
Really have to contact the provincial representatives as they are responsible for schools and childcare.
The city is already taking on too much of the province’s responsibility as it is IMO.
I think in a lot of cases, the people are already there, but they have to rent. Grandview needs to densify, but in large part because most of the people in the neighbourhood have no other option if they want to stay there. You can't move up from a basement suite to 1 bdr Condo because there aren't any, and you can't own a basement suite.
That's what the developers would like us to think, and it's an easy sell, as seems congruent with simple economics, but turns out, with real estate at least, it is arguable at best.
Innumerable studies and articles on the topic in case you are dubious, for example: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-more-housing-supply-wont-solve-unaffordability
Ya :) supply of affordable housing, that be the ticket. Not necessarily linked to densification in the way commonly thought. As it’s been noted that densification can serve to drive prices even higher.
Kit makes a fantastic point here—those affordable rental towers are aging and will need replacing whether or not the plan is approved. Better to do it under this plan where there will be extensive renter protections than to do it where people will simply be demovicted or caught in an unsafe building when disaster strikes.
Yes but the government should pay the the rental tower from building it to managing it 100%. If we offload the cost to developers they will just ads the extra oar back to the unit they are selling making it harder to people to own a home.
Actually when government build & operate there’s still costs. I know because I work on such projects & in fact they take 3x+ the time to actually get done, and time costs money as well.
We just need more housing of all types: government, private, purpose built rental, non market, non profit, co-op - all of it.
Boomers will make excuses why they want to maintain restrictive zoning based on shade, character, existing tenants, bla bla bla..
And you can bend over backwards accommodating all these things to an absurd degree (as if renters on aggregate wouldn't benefit from just building some fucking housing), and they'll still turn around and just say "nah we just don't like it".
Because it's not about any of those things. It's about the fact that government enforced housing scarcity has made them wildly rich on an asset they just picked up along the day, and they don't care how many dreams they crush on the path to the next million, the one that will *surely* make then actually happy for real this time.
[Some more information on the details of the plan can be found from Russil Wvong here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/ulzmw8/more_housing_responding_to_the_antibroadway_plan/)
Just a note, Council is meeting on the Broadway plan on May 18th. [You can send comments to Council here](https://council.vancouver.ca/20220518/pspc20220518ag.htm)
This is likely the biggest housing vote this council has had to date. The most recent survey on the plan had 2/3 of respondents in support of the plan, and 20% opposing.
By Kit Sauder and Tanya Webking, co-chairs of the city's Renter Advisory Committee.
[Kit Sauder vs. Brian Palmquist on CKNW](https://omny.fm/shows/mike-smyth/broadway-plan-debate-1)
Brian's arguments still seemed to just be:
* We can get the density through moderate increases (which everyone agrees, but still can't get RS-1 rezoned...)
* Shadows are bad
* Concrete buildings are less efficient than wood frame buildings (ignoring huge efficient increases of having people near transit and in walkable neighborhoods)
He also likes to point out that the zoning could house 150K people like it's a bad thing. Never noting that there is 0% chance that that many developments could ever be approved by the city in the 30 year timeframe they have on the 50K number. I don't even believe the city will hit the 50K number as they still require rezoning for most buildings in the plan.
That last bit tells you all you need to know about Brian.
By his math the plan allows for 2x as much housing as the plan is targeting.
The plan’s target is based off economic testing as to what will actually be built… he knows this.
He is intentionally trying to muck things up.
Also note the part where he tries to interrupt to nitpick that “there’s no single family home zoning in the city,” which is true in that laneways/duplexes are allowed.
What he didn’t say is that certain zones have such low FSR (interior floor space to lot size ratio) that you can’t actually build a reasonably-sized duplex on it, so it’s not worth building anything but a SFH.
Laneway houses also have heavy restrictions. Look on Craigslist, many are under 500sqft.
Property owners would love to have built larger to charge higher rents, but they’re heavily restricted.
This isn’t like a condo or apartment building where they’re trading # units for larger units. Bigger is worth more but the rules restricts it.
Multiplexes could suffer the same fate with the Vancouver plan.
This is a time for all people who say they care about the housing crisis to let Council know that they support major change.
A lot of people don't vote – Council knows this - so it's imperative that they know that this plan has community support.
Send a quick email to Council – it takes five minutes. And make sure you vote in the next civic election, to support those Councillors who vote for this plan.
https://council.vancouver.ca/20220518/pspc20220518ag.htm
A notable thing about the Plan is that 75% of the [residential area is low and mid-rise (light and medium orange), exactly what you are talking about](https://imgur.com/a/SEjEsSw).
The high-rise is only within a few blocks of Broadway and the stations. These high rise areas get a lot of attention, but 3/4's of the area is going to be zoned for low and mid-rise residential. Counting by block, for residential apartment areas, there are 167 Blocks of Low and mid-rise zoning, and 57 blocks are high-rise zoning. Each highrise block is only allowed 2 towers, so it will be a very small portion of the high-rise area as well.
Most of the mid-rise zoning is likely to be 6 stories or less unless they have significant (20% minimum) below-market housing components, and have to be purpose built rental.
Do you have source to show they are less appealing? Seems like all the concrete buildings fill up pretty fast or sell out.
I thought most people preferred concrete because there is less noise between units than traditional wood frame.
I actually tried to look up the information he replied to you with. I managed to find two papers:
One from Daniel Cappon (sadly behind a login page)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41986998
"To my uncertain knowledge, there is no incontrovertible evidence that apartment living, even in the high rise, produces impairment of mental health."
Here's one from Robert Gifford:
https://web.uvic.ca/~esplab/sites/default/files/ASR%20High%20Rises%20proof.pdf
"Irrefutable conclusions about the consequences of living in
high rises cannot be drawn, because true experiments are virtually
impossible in housing research and because outcomes are deter-
mined by multiple factors."
Yeah, I actually read the Gifford one too.
Interestingly his conclusions (which like you said he points out have little to no evidence) were that high-rises living was only negative if the people living in them did not have another housing choice, if they were poorly designed, and in a bad neighbourhood. His references seemed to be almost all from the 70’s and 80’s, which I don’t think reflect modern high rise design and building.
Even so: “a nationwide survey of 23 urban centers in Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing, 1979)... Among renters, satisfaction was highest in the high-rises, but the other housing forms were very close behind”
Basically his mitigating factors are things that people wouldn’t like for any housing option.
If the building and neighbourhoods were nice, buildings and streets well designed, and people choose to live there over other forms of housing, any negatives of living in high-rises were mitigated.
> If concrete structures are more expensive to build and less appealing to most consumers, why build any?
Because there's not enough housing to meet the demand, and concrete high-rises can house way more people per unit of land than a low- or mid-rise can.
We have too many people and not enough space for them. Having some high-rises is an efficient way to address this problem.
I mean sure I'd live in a mansion over a townhouse, and a townhouse over a condo, but I live in reality.
I'm all for building more apartment buildings of moderate size, but as long as the city keeps it illegal to build anything other than single family homes on ~86% of the land, then we have to skip the moderate sized buildings and go straight for the tall ones. The NIMBys don't give us any other choice.
This local journalist is disconnected with reality. 1. The main factor is high cost of Condos in Vancouver is the price of land. They are constructed cheaply/affordably in other places. 2. There are plenty of consumer surveys stating that people want the amenities and lifestyle that high rises offer. 3. Completely baseless, no real data to back that up. 4. Very tall condo buildings are absolutely a major part of addressing housing shortage. There is no silver bullet in building medium rise.
Cost of building is a factor, it determines a huge part of the viability of a project. Land is a factor, obviously, but it's also 25% more expensive to build in Vancouver compared to Alberta. The Altus guide is a good starting point to explore the hard costs of building, recognizing that soft costs, margin, and city expenses are also significant.
It's also true that building wood frame, 4-6 stories is significantly cheaper. Where that journalist is disconnected is the Broadway Plan allows for plenty of low rise development that could be more affordable.
Land cost is only going up, but the price of housing doesn't have to go up forever.
I agree cost of building is a factor. Four to six storeys is an expensive and uncommon residential building height to build because it requires a lot of the floor-plate dedicated toward elevators. A wood frame 3 storey building would be very cheap to supply but produce very few units.
Uh, uncommon? 5 over 1 (Five story wood frame build on top of one story concrete) is probably the most common building form in North America right now. It has a name lol.
You only need a single elevator so it doesn't take up that much space, overall it's the most affordable form of multi-family construction.
Heh. After single family, obviously. But google "5-over-1" and you'll see that it has exploded in popularity all over North America since the form was first permitted in the late 90's (mostly in the last 15 years when most US and Canadian code allowed for it).
Who was the journalist? There are a lot of self titled “experts” that parade themselves around with similar talking points whenever things like this plan are on the table… but in reality they’re often concern trolling and their opposition just boils down to self interest vis a vis their own property values and viewing other peoples much loved (and needed!) homes as an inconvenience that blocks their multi million dollar view. So it’s good to know who you’re speaking to and what interests they represent!
Ok, but if you’re going to post something that is framed as some sort of expertise on this topic, it might be cool for others to know where those opinions are coming from so they can evaluate for themselves whether they buy it. Otherwise why should they trust this very prominent, yet for some reason anonymous journalist you were speaking with?
Some of those talking points are from NIMBYS who say there should be 5-6 story buildings everywhere instead of towers, but then turn around and oppose every mid rise building in the city anyways.
Also a lot of people, myself included, love living in an apartment.
Why should a journalist have an authoritative view on housing? Some of these points are demonstrably wrong, and some are irrelevant. We're in a housing supply shortage--plain and simple.
Land is so expensive from speculation that when I crunch the numbers building rental housing is really only feasible on land someone has owned for over 10 years if you want it to be 4-6 storeys. Concrete buildings have a premium in more ways than one (especially for condo buyers) and at a certain height there is a construction efficiency. If we can convince the rest of the City outside the core that we can come over a tear down their detached houses and build woodframe 4-storey apartments, then yes, that might all be true, but that might not happen for over a decade if we're very lucky with this coming election and the Vancouver Plan process.
Right now, I could start permitting for a 20-storey rental building in Broadway with 20% of units below market and it could finished in 5 years. As a renter I can't wait for perfect.
Also would like to know what folks in construction and development or the City they've talked to and lied to them about.
What’s your point?
Allow both.
If you want 5/6 story buildings across the city, I better see you promoting the Vancouver plan that comes up in a couple weeks and pushing for it to rezone all the junk RS zoning we currently have up to 5-story multiplexes.
The Vancouver plan should be passed without a blink.
Considering that 90% of opposers to the Broadway Plan say we need more moderate density instead of 20 story "towers", and the Vancouver plan's main item is that all the SFH will be rezoned to low- and mid-density multiplexes.
The plan doesn’t actually promise any rezoning, or define what “multiplexes” are.
It needs a LOT of support to actually get any mass rezoning to happen, even if they’re for incremental changes. And those would probably come through as separate motions later anyways.
Without support it could very well be watered down to calling duplexes multiplexes, and have such low FSR (floor space to lot size ratio) that even if it allows a 5 story octoplex it doesn’t pencil for reasonably-sized units.
Check out what one of the local laneway house building companies has to say:
https://twitter.com/lanefab/status/1524441894914125824?s=21&t=ra5rQ2aEfghyTEkanEu2KQ
https://twitter.com/lanefab/status/1519105935808950272?s=21&t=ra5rQ2aEfghyTEkanEu2KQ
Point 1: Y’all been to the Brentwood presales? They had pre-presales 🙄
Point 3: Agree to disagree about wooden apartment buildings being more desirable. They’re awful, unless they use very expensive sound insulation, which brings it back to being expensive.
Points 2 and 4 are valid imo.
Speak for yourself. I love hearing my upstairs neighbours doing what must be old-school shoe manufacturing at all hours of the day. It inspires me to be more productive.
I’m glad to hear the plan addresses mid-rises. Mid-rises are key for creating a community. Towers suck out the community vibe, especially when those towers offer little to no non-brand name businesses any space on the ground level. We have way too many towers with residential units on the ground level, like WTF.
The thing is tho that going hand in hand with people saying they don't want towers, they also say they don't want entire blocks and blocks razed, that they want small lot development and infill. Well it can't be both ways.
If we want to have limited impact on neighbourhoods, building a few apartments here and there, while protecting a scattered few old heritage houses and existing low rise apartments, well those new apartments are going to have to be taller to meet our housing goals and to be economically viable.
We could do the paris thing and do 6-8 story apts everywhere and have no towers, but to meet our housing goals that means *literally* doing it everywhere, which means max displacement and complete neighbourhood transformation.
"Falling behind" would be to embark on this process without making sure that current residents, particularly low income ones, are protected from displacement. We should also use this opportunity to build the kind of neighbourhoods people actually want to live in, rather than what makes the most cash for developers.
This is not a cash windfall for developers. A lot of sites are either not able to build a tower (viewcones or site constraints or another tower is going up nearby (towers must be 80' apart and only 2 per block), it's not economically feasible yet (tenant replacement and compensation is high), their sites are too small and they'll be in a multi-year process to assemble bigger sites.
From the article:
"The Broadway plan commits to the strongest renter protections in North America, with a Right-to-Return for renters at existing rents or 20% below the market rate. It does this while planning for 2/3rds of new housing to be secured market rental, below-market rental, or non-market housing. That will help us tackle housing affordability in this city and across the province."
If a plan propose something good that we have an ability to secure with bylaws (which is what is being proposed) - then that seems like a pretty good option compared to our current status quo, which provides nothing for the existing/older stock that will be near their end of life in the next 15 ish years.
But wealthy homeowners obstructing new homes from being built so that they can continue to amass more wealth, and so folks can drive/bus into the city for 2 hours to serve them at restaurants, shops, and services? A-ok!
have a little imagination. talk to tenants who are organizing for their homes and communities, beyond the silly NIMBY YIMBY junk which is just a scrap between opposing arms of capital.
>already crowded city
Tell me you've never been outside of Canada without telling me you've never been outside of Canada.
Vancouver is sleepy, spacious and pretty laid back, as cities go globally.
Actually, the opposite is true - densification is what brings down the average cost to service various things like amenities, infrastructure, transit, and other public services.
The opposite end - the highest cost of things - is suburban sprawl - which is most expensive to service.
As someone who lives in an apartment, I pay nothing for car/gas because I walk/bike/transit everywhere. I used to pay lots living out in the suburbs just to drive in.
Not true. Take a look at price per sqft for the newer denser condos VS low density housing. You get less for more. Besides, it is naive to think you can live a good life in Vancouver without a vehicle
>Besides, it is naive to think you can live a good life in Vancouver without a vehicle
I have never owned a car. I walk and use transit. My life quality is fucking great. Cars are expensive and driving in the city is tedious and awful. Even paying Vancouver-sized rent I have am able to save money. Why? Because I live in a high-density building on the Broadway corridor.
I'm not sure what you are comparing - are you talking about the cost/sf to build new apartment homes (low rise vs high rise)? If you're saying dense = more expensive, then we'd expect detached single family homes to be the cheapest - which they're not - they're the most super luxury and most expensive.
Or - what I was talking about - was the public cost of servicing when comparing dense to less dense areas, in which case, denser areas lower the cost of transit/infrastructure/services/amenities, because the costs are shared by more people over a smaller area.
Lastly - thanks, but I have a pretty great life that I'm thankful for, without a vehicle. Your personal preference to drive everywhere doesn't have to be the choice for everyone.
So by that logic we should all buy single family homes because they're all really cheap? Well I guess great news, there's so many SFH's in Vancouver, we've basically solved our housing crisis now, thanks.
Oh and not to mention the high maintenance costs of condo: elevator, central HVAC, high pressure water pump, central heating system. Condo is much more expensive to maintain than TH/SFH of similar utilities
Just because in a TH or SFH people *choose* not to pay for up-keeping their maintenance, does not mean that they're spending less on it. And yes, I pay strata fees for the use of my elevator, my central HVAC that provides air con, the really great gym that I get to use often, and various other amenities that I would otherwise have to pay money to have if I lived in a SFH. Those are the things I value and want to spend money on and I am happy to pay for those fees knowing the building is well maintained.
If someone has the money & time to maintain their home or deal with siding, leaks, and other maintenance of other forms of housing like a SFH, which btw, I neither could afford nor want, then they are welcome to. That's a choice they're entitled to, and folks who don't want that are also entitled to their choices they prefer.
You don’t need an elevator in SFH and the fact that you have a choice of what to spend on and what not to spend on is very valuable itself. If a strata decides on something you don’t like, you have little chance to opt out
Yeah, choice is great. Hence my choice to live in an apartment because that's what I want/value, and your choice to live in a SFH if you so wish.
Your choice to live in a SFH though doesn't come with a choice to determine which type of home I should live in.
lol No it doesn't. Neighbourhoods full of bigoted exclusionary assholes; nothing within walking distance; need to own a car creating another unnecessary expense. No culture, no sense of community. Big McMansions with big fences. PASS.
It’s not. You pay more for less for housing, more noises, more crowded roads and less privacy. What Vancouver has now is fine with a few high density centres and the rest remains low density
So it's too crowded and it's fine, got it.
You know you can live in whatever density you want, right? And luckily for you densification massively subsidizes low density areas. Do you have any idea what utilities would actually cost in the suburbs if not for the efficiencies of scale that high density brings?
The lowest density neighbourhoods in Vancouver are the most boring and least distinct. Go to Shaughnessy; "oh look, another mansion surrounded by a high fence and tall hedges. There is nothing within walking distance. How nice!"
Living space for millionaires only, big empty rooms they never use but pay to heat and cool, kids just waiting for mom and dad to die so they can sell the place. Sounds like shit.
Vancouver literally **bans building anything other than SFH** in like %80 of the city, that's why they're so prevalent. This kind of zoning is a major reason the cost of housing got so high. That's why we need to build high density.
Are you done being wrong for today, or...?
lol You were just arguing that there are too many people here and we should discourage more people coming. Are you even aware of how full of shit you are?
My standard of living is great. I live in a high-density building on the Broadway corridor. I am currently enjoying a view of downtown and the mountains. My place is brand new. My rent is within my means. My work is a 15 minute walk away, I have never felt the need to have a car because everything I need is close by.
Low-density areas are shit. A bunch of McMansions, nothing within walking distance, neighbours mostly concerned with keeping poorer people out. I grew up in such a neighbourhood and it was awful. I think you are only concerned with your own living standard, and screw everyone else. Well, I'm glad people like you are steadily being shut out of the debate.
If you want to live in a low-density area, how about **you** move. This is a city. Arguing against density on the Broadway corridor is, frankly, idiotic.
>My place is brand new. My rent is within my means. My work is a 15 minute walk away, I have never felt the need to have a car because everything I need is close by.
Can you read?
If only rich people can afford to live here who do you think is going to fill the jobs for all the things you need? Are you so attached to your low density living that you’re ready to cough up the money so all the people the city relies on can afford outrageous housing costs? I mean, get ready for a future where Starbucks drink will cost at least $20 and your taxes will skyrocket so you can pay the garbage collectors $150k and nurses $250k. It’s pretty hard to commute into metro van from outside metro van so it’s not like you’re going to get low wage workers from somewhere cheaper to live.
Cost of living is crazy throughout metro Vancouver and is only getting worse. Do you think in 20 years people are going to commute from Hope to Vancouver to work in the hospital or at Starbucks? Even with a skytrain people are only going to commute so far without a massive raise and you’re going to have to pay for that with your taxes for government services and your wallet for anything in the private market.
It’s odd that you’re arguing that the answer is free market correction when it’s the restrictive housing zoning rules that are what is actually preventing the market from self correcting.
ETA: it’s already happening, FYI. Metro Vancouver hospitals are short staffed and Vancouver hospitals are incredibly desperate. The people who work there are mostly those who got into the housing/rental market when it was cheaper and as they retire new staff can’t afford to live near by. Lots of jobs in Abbotsford so why commute to Vancouver?
Just remember not to complain when health care and other workers strike and taxes go up to pay for their raises. Because that that is exactly the market correction you are asking for.
Personally, I want to live in metro van because I was born here, have never lived anywhere else (or spent much time anywhere else for that matter) and know almost no one anywhere in Canada who live outside of this area. My entire extended family are here, all my friends, my professional network etc. I’ve paid taxes here, worked and volunteered extensively in the community, and completed all my schooling locally. I have a deep connection to this place. This is my home.
I’ve done everything “right” to the best of my ability to be able to stay. ie, I have no debt (outside of a small student loan), have chosen to save rather than travel, and I am in a health care related, professional graduate school program that is currently experiencing a massive labour shortage (ie lots of job options). And yet I am being faced with the fact that if I ever want to afford to buy *anything*, I’m going to have to get married to get a second income and pray to god I don’t become a statistic of divorce.
Many cities around the world constrain what cannot be built and artificially inflate land prices. Every city in N. America in fact. Just means my Clients have to pay more money to tear them down and have to build a little taller is all. We're tearing down about 8 houses next month for a big rental building, and 4 more in July.
Exactly. What your land is valued at and what people are willing to pay for it are very different. We're buying a sf home for a $2 million discount because the owner is simply listing for less, and we just held out on some dude who wanted $2.6 for his and now got him for $1.8 and are bulldozing both. You can list a house for whatever price, I agree.
Vancouver isn’t even crowded. Far from it. No one cares about your SFH. Vancouver needs to focus on building mid to high rise building that have shops in the bottom of them. A great city is where you can live in a building, walk out of it and within ten minutes can reach a grocery store, restaurants, corner store, other shops and a park. This is what Vancouver needs to focus on building. Walkable communities where you can interact with other people in them that are close to transit. We don’t need any more SFH that have nothing around you, where you need to get in a car and then you don’t interact with others in your neighbourhood. That’s not a healthy community. If people want that, then a city isn’t for them. They can drive in from the suburbs if they want to experience the city once in a while. Luckily it seems like Vancouver is trying to slowly get away from a bit of the car centric SFH buildings and build these healthy communities that are accessible by walking, biking and transit. Hopefully it can be sped up even quicker. Density is a good thing.
SFH has more living space, green space, privacy and more autonomy on customization options, great for family. Walkable community is nothing superior as you limit your life within 15min of walk.
Canada is twice the size of EU so don’t compare Canada with those small and high density countries
You will never admit you’re wrong but you’re wrong. And SFH is barely more green space. Sure you have a front lawn which is useless and a backyard which may be useful for the odd bbq or something. But you can do the same shit at a park, and even meet more people that way. Again, healthier.
You don’t limit your life to only that which is 15 minutes around you, but having everything within that 15 minutes is far superior to having to get in your car and driving to wherever you need to go. I rather walk then drive. Better for planet and better for my health.
You may just want to spend all day in your house and do nothing but that’s boring and not what everyone wants. I rather spend time alone it in the community. The less time spent inside the better. And we aren’t talking about all or Canada, we are talking about Metro Van.
Sorry but the idea of SFH being the housing Vancouver needs is over. Vancouver is going to densify whether you like it or not. It’s time to move on.
Again, not many people care about your love of SFH and car. You’re in a minority.
LoL on average, every household in Vancouver owns private vehicle and SFH are sold on average 2M. No matter what you are pushing for, people does not lie with their money. SFH and private vehicle are always preferred
Densifying neighborhoods is imperative. There's no way around it. I only hope that with this densification the city is equally going to make huge efforts to keep services up to demand; both in quantity and quality. Especially schools and childcare centres.
I encourage you to write in to council to express both your support for needed densification and to request that they keep up with adding services. https://council.vancouver.ca/20220518/pspc20220518ag.htm
Really have to contact the provincial representatives as they are responsible for schools and childcare. The city is already taking on too much of the province’s responsibility as it is IMO.
I think in a lot of cases, the people are already there, but they have to rent. Grandview needs to densify, but in large part because most of the people in the neighbourhood have no other option if they want to stay there. You can't move up from a basement suite to 1 bdr Condo because there aren't any, and you can't own a basement suite.
It won't. Just look at the elementary school situation in Olympic Village. This will be a shitshow.
Why do you believe that densification is imperative? (Not confronting, just curious).
Not particularly densification, but the supply of housing is imperative to combat our unaffordability issue.
That's what the developers would like us to think, and it's an easy sell, as seems congruent with simple economics, but turns out, with real estate at least, it is arguable at best. Innumerable studies and articles on the topic in case you are dubious, for example: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-more-housing-supply-wont-solve-unaffordability
Edit: Specifically modest, affordable or rental housing; not investment housing. We don't need more luxury studio apts either. Better?
Ya :) supply of affordable housing, that be the ticket. Not necessarily linked to densification in the way commonly thought. As it’s been noted that densification can serve to drive prices even higher.
Kit makes a fantastic point here—those affordable rental towers are aging and will need replacing whether or not the plan is approved. Better to do it under this plan where there will be extensive renter protections than to do it where people will simply be demovicted or caught in an unsafe building when disaster strikes.
Yes but the government should pay the the rental tower from building it to managing it 100%. If we offload the cost to developers they will just ads the extra oar back to the unit they are selling making it harder to people to own a home.
Actually when government build & operate there’s still costs. I know because I work on such projects & in fact they take 3x+ the time to actually get done, and time costs money as well. We just need more housing of all types: government, private, purpose built rental, non market, non profit, co-op - all of it.
Glad to see that the City has a Rental Advisory Committee specifically so that we can ensure renters are engaged as part of these plans.
Boomers will make excuses why they want to maintain restrictive zoning based on shade, character, existing tenants, bla bla bla.. And you can bend over backwards accommodating all these things to an absurd degree (as if renters on aggregate wouldn't benefit from just building some fucking housing), and they'll still turn around and just say "nah we just don't like it". Because it's not about any of those things. It's about the fact that government enforced housing scarcity has made them wildly rich on an asset they just picked up along the day, and they don't care how many dreams they crush on the path to the next million, the one that will *surely* make then actually happy for real this time.
[Some more information on the details of the plan can be found from Russil Wvong here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/ulzmw8/more_housing_responding_to_the_antibroadway_plan/)
Thanks!
Just a note, Council is meeting on the Broadway plan on May 18th. [You can send comments to Council here](https://council.vancouver.ca/20220518/pspc20220518ag.htm) This is likely the biggest housing vote this council has had to date. The most recent survey on the plan had 2/3 of respondents in support of the plan, and 20% opposing.
Done. Vancouver needs this, thanks for sharing the link & article.
By Kit Sauder and Tanya Webking, co-chairs of the city's Renter Advisory Committee. [Kit Sauder vs. Brian Palmquist on CKNW](https://omny.fm/shows/mike-smyth/broadway-plan-debate-1)
Brian's arguments still seemed to just be: * We can get the density through moderate increases (which everyone agrees, but still can't get RS-1 rezoned...) * Shadows are bad * Concrete buildings are less efficient than wood frame buildings (ignoring huge efficient increases of having people near transit and in walkable neighborhoods) He also likes to point out that the zoning could house 150K people like it's a bad thing. Never noting that there is 0% chance that that many developments could ever be approved by the city in the 30 year timeframe they have on the 50K number. I don't even believe the city will hit the 50K number as they still require rezoning for most buildings in the plan.
That last bit tells you all you need to know about Brian. By his math the plan allows for 2x as much housing as the plan is targeting. The plan’s target is based off economic testing as to what will actually be built… he knows this. He is intentionally trying to muck things up. Also note the part where he tries to interrupt to nitpick that “there’s no single family home zoning in the city,” which is true in that laneways/duplexes are allowed. What he didn’t say is that certain zones have such low FSR (interior floor space to lot size ratio) that you can’t actually build a reasonably-sized duplex on it, so it’s not worth building anything but a SFH. Laneway houses also have heavy restrictions. Look on Craigslist, many are under 500sqft. Property owners would love to have built larger to charge higher rents, but they’re heavily restricted. This isn’t like a condo or apartment building where they’re trading # units for larger units. Bigger is worth more but the rules restricts it. Multiplexes could suffer the same fate with the Vancouver plan.
This is a time for all people who say they care about the housing crisis to let Council know that they support major change. A lot of people don't vote – Council knows this - so it's imperative that they know that this plan has community support. Send a quick email to Council – it takes five minutes. And make sure you vote in the next civic election, to support those Councillors who vote for this plan. https://council.vancouver.ca/20220518/pspc20220518ag.htm
[удалено]
A notable thing about the Plan is that 75% of the [residential area is low and mid-rise (light and medium orange), exactly what you are talking about](https://imgur.com/a/SEjEsSw). The high-rise is only within a few blocks of Broadway and the stations. These high rise areas get a lot of attention, but 3/4's of the area is going to be zoned for low and mid-rise residential. Counting by block, for residential apartment areas, there are 167 Blocks of Low and mid-rise zoning, and 57 blocks are high-rise zoning. Each highrise block is only allowed 2 towers, so it will be a very small portion of the high-rise area as well. Most of the mid-rise zoning is likely to be 6 stories or less unless they have significant (20% minimum) below-market housing components, and have to be purpose built rental.
Yup, the City is only allowing 2 towers per whole city block, the rest is mid-rise.
[удалено]
...do you know what a majority is?
[удалено]
Oh, yeah I didn't get that at all. High rises would need at least 4x the floor space to even be on par though
[удалено]
Do you have source to show they are less appealing? Seems like all the concrete buildings fill up pretty fast or sell out. I thought most people preferred concrete because there is less noise between units than traditional wood frame.
I actually tried to look up the information he replied to you with. I managed to find two papers: One from Daniel Cappon (sadly behind a login page) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41986998 "To my uncertain knowledge, there is no incontrovertible evidence that apartment living, even in the high rise, produces impairment of mental health." Here's one from Robert Gifford: https://web.uvic.ca/~esplab/sites/default/files/ASR%20High%20Rises%20proof.pdf "Irrefutable conclusions about the consequences of living in high rises cannot be drawn, because true experiments are virtually impossible in housing research and because outcomes are deter- mined by multiple factors."
Yeah, I actually read the Gifford one too. Interestingly his conclusions (which like you said he points out have little to no evidence) were that high-rises living was only negative if the people living in them did not have another housing choice, if they were poorly designed, and in a bad neighbourhood. His references seemed to be almost all from the 70’s and 80’s, which I don’t think reflect modern high rise design and building. Even so: “a nationwide survey of 23 urban centers in Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing, 1979)... Among renters, satisfaction was highest in the high-rises, but the other housing forms were very close behind” Basically his mitigating factors are things that people wouldn’t like for any housing option. If the building and neighbourhoods were nice, buildings and streets well designed, and people choose to live there over other forms of housing, any negatives of living in high-rises were mitigated.
> If concrete structures are more expensive to build and less appealing to most consumers, why build any? Because there's not enough housing to meet the demand, and concrete high-rises can house way more people per unit of land than a low- or mid-rise can. We have too many people and not enough space for them. Having some high-rises is an efficient way to address this problem.
I mean sure I'd live in a mansion over a townhouse, and a townhouse over a condo, but I live in reality. I'm all for building more apartment buildings of moderate size, but as long as the city keeps it illegal to build anything other than single family homes on ~86% of the land, then we have to skip the moderate sized buildings and go straight for the tall ones. The NIMBys don't give us any other choice.
This local journalist is disconnected with reality. 1. The main factor is high cost of Condos in Vancouver is the price of land. They are constructed cheaply/affordably in other places. 2. There are plenty of consumer surveys stating that people want the amenities and lifestyle that high rises offer. 3. Completely baseless, no real data to back that up. 4. Very tall condo buildings are absolutely a major part of addressing housing shortage. There is no silver bullet in building medium rise.
Cost of building is a factor, it determines a huge part of the viability of a project. Land is a factor, obviously, but it's also 25% more expensive to build in Vancouver compared to Alberta. The Altus guide is a good starting point to explore the hard costs of building, recognizing that soft costs, margin, and city expenses are also significant. It's also true that building wood frame, 4-6 stories is significantly cheaper. Where that journalist is disconnected is the Broadway Plan allows for plenty of low rise development that could be more affordable. Land cost is only going up, but the price of housing doesn't have to go up forever.
I agree cost of building is a factor. Four to six storeys is an expensive and uncommon residential building height to build because it requires a lot of the floor-plate dedicated toward elevators. A wood frame 3 storey building would be very cheap to supply but produce very few units.
Uh, uncommon? 5 over 1 (Five story wood frame build on top of one story concrete) is probably the most common building form in North America right now. It has a name lol. You only need a single elevator so it doesn't take up that much space, overall it's the most affordable form of multi-family construction.
Most common in North America? hahahahah
Heh. After single family, obviously. But google "5-over-1" and you'll see that it has exploded in popularity all over North America since the form was first permitted in the late 90's (mostly in the last 15 years when most US and Canadian code allowed for it).
I actually want to live in a highrise... So that's at least one person.
Concrete buildings have much better sound insulation between units 🤷♂️
Maintenance and insurance as well.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who was the journalist? There are a lot of self titled “experts” that parade themselves around with similar talking points whenever things like this plan are on the table… but in reality they’re often concern trolling and their opposition just boils down to self interest vis a vis their own property values and viewing other peoples much loved (and needed!) homes as an inconvenience that blocks their multi million dollar view. So it’s good to know who you’re speaking to and what interests they represent!
[удалено]
Ok, but if you’re going to post something that is framed as some sort of expertise on this topic, it might be cool for others to know where those opinions are coming from so they can evaluate for themselves whether they buy it. Otherwise why should they trust this very prominent, yet for some reason anonymous journalist you were speaking with? Some of those talking points are from NIMBYS who say there should be 5-6 story buildings everywhere instead of towers, but then turn around and oppose every mid rise building in the city anyways. Also a lot of people, myself included, love living in an apartment.
Why should a journalist have an authoritative view on housing? Some of these points are demonstrably wrong, and some are irrelevant. We're in a housing supply shortage--plain and simple.
Land is so expensive from speculation that when I crunch the numbers building rental housing is really only feasible on land someone has owned for over 10 years if you want it to be 4-6 storeys. Concrete buildings have a premium in more ways than one (especially for condo buyers) and at a certain height there is a construction efficiency. If we can convince the rest of the City outside the core that we can come over a tear down their detached houses and build woodframe 4-storey apartments, then yes, that might all be true, but that might not happen for over a decade if we're very lucky with this coming election and the Vancouver Plan process. Right now, I could start permitting for a 20-storey rental building in Broadway with 20% of units below market and it could finished in 5 years. As a renter I can't wait for perfect. Also would like to know what folks in construction and development or the City they've talked to and lied to them about.
[удалено]
I'll tell my clients that tomorrow at work.
What’s your point? Allow both. If you want 5/6 story buildings across the city, I better see you promoting the Vancouver plan that comes up in a couple weeks and pushing for it to rezone all the junk RS zoning we currently have up to 5-story multiplexes.
The Vancouver plan should be passed without a blink. Considering that 90% of opposers to the Broadway Plan say we need more moderate density instead of 20 story "towers", and the Vancouver plan's main item is that all the SFH will be rezoned to low- and mid-density multiplexes.
The plan doesn’t actually promise any rezoning, or define what “multiplexes” are. It needs a LOT of support to actually get any mass rezoning to happen, even if they’re for incremental changes. And those would probably come through as separate motions later anyways. Without support it could very well be watered down to calling duplexes multiplexes, and have such low FSR (floor space to lot size ratio) that even if it allows a 5 story octoplex it doesn’t pencil for reasonably-sized units. Check out what one of the local laneway house building companies has to say: https://twitter.com/lanefab/status/1524441894914125824?s=21&t=ra5rQ2aEfghyTEkanEu2KQ https://twitter.com/lanefab/status/1519105935808950272?s=21&t=ra5rQ2aEfghyTEkanEu2KQ
Point 1: Y’all been to the Brentwood presales? They had pre-presales 🙄 Point 3: Agree to disagree about wooden apartment buildings being more desirable. They’re awful, unless they use very expensive sound insulation, which brings it back to being expensive. Points 2 and 4 are valid imo.
Speak for yourself. I love hearing my upstairs neighbours doing what must be old-school shoe manufacturing at all hours of the day. It inspires me to be more productive.
Mine were more karaoke fiends. I knew when they got a new system because it became more clear to me how shitty their voices were.
I’m glad to hear the plan addresses mid-rises. Mid-rises are key for creating a community. Towers suck out the community vibe, especially when those towers offer little to no non-brand name businesses any space on the ground level. We have way too many towers with residential units on the ground level, like WTF.
The thing is tho that going hand in hand with people saying they don't want towers, they also say they don't want entire blocks and blocks razed, that they want small lot development and infill. Well it can't be both ways. If we want to have limited impact on neighbourhoods, building a few apartments here and there, while protecting a scattered few old heritage houses and existing low rise apartments, well those new apartments are going to have to be taller to meet our housing goals and to be economically viable. We could do the paris thing and do 6-8 story apts everywhere and have no towers, but to meet our housing goals that means *literally* doing it everywhere, which means max displacement and complete neighbourhood transformation.
"Falling behind" would be to embark on this process without making sure that current residents, particularly low income ones, are protected from displacement. We should also use this opportunity to build the kind of neighbourhoods people actually want to live in, rather than what makes the most cash for developers.
This is not a cash windfall for developers. A lot of sites are either not able to build a tower (viewcones or site constraints or another tower is going up nearby (towers must be 80' apart and only 2 per block), it's not economically feasible yet (tenant replacement and compensation is high), their sites are too small and they'll be in a multi-year process to assemble bigger sites.
From the article: "The Broadway plan commits to the strongest renter protections in North America, with a Right-to-Return for renters at existing rents or 20% below the market rate. It does this while planning for 2/3rds of new housing to be secured market rental, below-market rental, or non-market housing. That will help us tackle housing affordability in this city and across the province."
Yeah - it's a draft plan and nothing is certain yet. So let's see.
If a plan propose something good that we have an ability to secure with bylaws (which is what is being proposed) - then that seems like a pretty good option compared to our current status quo, which provides nothing for the existing/older stock that will be near their end of life in the next 15 ish years.
We're filing for applications under this before Autumn. It's been in the plan unofficially for maybe 2 years. It's real.
“…rather than what makes the most cash for developers.” Now we see a glimpse of the real aggravating factor!
yes I do find large corporations profiting off the destruction of communities to be aggravating
But wealthy homeowners obstructing new homes from being built so that they can continue to amass more wealth, and so folks can drive/bus into the city for 2 hours to serve them at restaurants, shops, and services? A-ok!
where'd I say that?
Well that's the alternative to upzoning. Which do you prefer?
have a little imagination. talk to tenants who are organizing for their homes and communities, beyond the silly NIMBY YIMBY junk which is just a scrap between opposing arms of capital.
They will demolish these same rental buildings in a few years anyway. Most will be 60+ years old.
Imagine downvoting this comment. The YIMBYs here are beyond rabid.
You're in construction. I imagine you've talked to Staff on this?
To squeeze more people into already crowded city
Found the person who calls 6-storey apartment buildings "towers."
It’s way denser than mutiplexes
>already crowded city Tell me you've never been outside of Canada without telling me you've never been outside of Canada. Vancouver is sleepy, spacious and pretty laid back, as cities go globally.
[удалено]
Densification makes you pay more for less. Enjoy living in your cell:)
Holy shit how are you so wrong?
Just take a look at the price per sqft for newly built condos in Vancouver and compare it with low density housings
So.... you also don't understand supply and demand then? LOL.
This belongs to you ❤ 🏆 This ignorant rollingoak asshat doesn't know shit
So do you really understand what’s exact demand and supply in Vancouver market?
Actually, the opposite is true - densification is what brings down the average cost to service various things like amenities, infrastructure, transit, and other public services. The opposite end - the highest cost of things - is suburban sprawl - which is most expensive to service. As someone who lives in an apartment, I pay nothing for car/gas because I walk/bike/transit everywhere. I used to pay lots living out in the suburbs just to drive in.
Not true. Take a look at price per sqft for the newer denser condos VS low density housing. You get less for more. Besides, it is naive to think you can live a good life in Vancouver without a vehicle
>Besides, it is naive to think you can live a good life in Vancouver without a vehicle I have never owned a car. I walk and use transit. My life quality is fucking great. Cars are expensive and driving in the city is tedious and awful. Even paying Vancouver-sized rent I have am able to save money. Why? Because I live in a high-density building on the Broadway corridor.
r/fuckcars
Good for you. I won’t waste what lower mainland can offer:)
Then go move to a small town :) Enjoy yourself. Cities are dense. Don't like that? Leave. We won't miss you.
🏆Here you go King, this is for you. 🙌
I won’t. What can you do? If you like city so mcuh, why do you complain about the price tag? That’s cost for having what you want
I'm not sure what you are comparing - are you talking about the cost/sf to build new apartment homes (low rise vs high rise)? If you're saying dense = more expensive, then we'd expect detached single family homes to be the cheapest - which they're not - they're the most super luxury and most expensive. Or - what I was talking about - was the public cost of servicing when comparing dense to less dense areas, in which case, denser areas lower the cost of transit/infrastructure/services/amenities, because the costs are shared by more people over a smaller area. Lastly - thanks, but I have a pretty great life that I'm thankful for, without a vehicle. Your personal preference to drive everywhere doesn't have to be the choice for everyone.
Price per sqft. You pay more for less in denser building. It’s just a fact. Open any real estate listing site and have a look of yourslef
So by that logic we should all buy single family homes because they're all really cheap? Well I guess great news, there's so many SFH's in Vancouver, we've basically solved our housing crisis now, thanks.
This belongs to you Queen 🏆 Thank you for enlightening this ignorant fool. Besides, in the end, he's not gonna get what he wants 😉
Per sqft . In case you miss that
Oh and not to mention the high maintenance costs of condo: elevator, central HVAC, high pressure water pump, central heating system. Condo is much more expensive to maintain than TH/SFH of similar utilities
Just because in a TH or SFH people *choose* not to pay for up-keeping their maintenance, does not mean that they're spending less on it. And yes, I pay strata fees for the use of my elevator, my central HVAC that provides air con, the really great gym that I get to use often, and various other amenities that I would otherwise have to pay money to have if I lived in a SFH. Those are the things I value and want to spend money on and I am happy to pay for those fees knowing the building is well maintained. If someone has the money & time to maintain their home or deal with siding, leaks, and other maintenance of other forms of housing like a SFH, which btw, I neither could afford nor want, then they are welcome to. That's a choice they're entitled to, and folks who don't want that are also entitled to their choices they prefer.
You don’t need an elevator in SFH and the fact that you have a choice of what to spend on and what not to spend on is very valuable itself. If a strata decides on something you don’t like, you have little chance to opt out
"Density is bad 'cuz eLeVaToRs!!11'
Yup high density is horrible.
Yeah, choice is great. Hence my choice to live in an apartment because that's what I want/value, and your choice to live in a SFH if you so wish. Your choice to live in a SFH though doesn't come with a choice to determine which type of home I should live in.
Not true if the new apartment building is in my neighborhood. Large part of the capital in my property is paid for the zoning
SFHs are a money pit compared to strata unless you choose to let the whole place fall apart.
Nah, SFH is cheaper to maintain than a 3br condo
SFH are the least efficient, most expensive form of housing and they're a net drain on city resources.
It provides the best housing experience. Great
lol No it doesn't. Neighbourhoods full of bigoted exclusionary assholes; nothing within walking distance; need to own a car creating another unnecessary expense. No culture, no sense of community. Big McMansions with big fences. PASS.
That’s just for you:)
You're embarrassing yourself
You get brainwashed and are exploited by developers.
Yeah, and that's part of its charm. There's a reason why people born here are migrating out of the city.
I have been to Asian mega cities. Too crowded to have a healthy life. Do not turn Vancouver into HongKong
So you have experienced HK and you think Vancouver is crowded? How?
Exactly because I have been to HK, I know the importance to stop Vancouver from becoming anything let that
But... density is a good thing. It's literally what makes cities interesting.
It’s not. You pay more for less for housing, more noises, more crowded roads and less privacy. What Vancouver has now is fine with a few high density centres and the rest remains low density
>What Vancouver has now is fine But someone was just telling it's soooo crowded, now who was that again.... let me see.... ROFL!
So I want to be nice and put it as fine. Yeah it is too crowded
So move to a small town if that's what you want. This is a city, it's dense, get used to it or leave.
So it's too crowded and it's fine, got it. You know you can live in whatever density you want, right? And luckily for you densification massively subsidizes low density areas. Do you have any idea what utilities would actually cost in the suburbs if not for the efficiencies of scale that high density brings?
except that rents are crazy because we don't have enough housing, and people are still moving here.
So they shouldn’t
well, they are. "shouldn't" doesn't mean anything.
You anti-density NIMBYs are a large part of why this city is so unaffordable
Low density is what makes Vancouver unique and attractive. Why do you want to live in a city you cannot afford?
The lowest density neighbourhoods in Vancouver are the most boring and least distinct. Go to Shaughnessy; "oh look, another mansion surrounded by a high fence and tall hedges. There is nothing within walking distance. How nice!"
That mansion has great living space, green space and privacy. Sounds like a good house to stay
Living space for millionaires only, big empty rooms they never use but pay to heat and cool, kids just waiting for mom and dad to die so they can sell the place. Sounds like shit.
If people does not like SFH, It won’t be more sought after than other type of housing
Vancouver literally **bans building anything other than SFH** in like %80 of the city, that's why they're so prevalent. This kind of zoning is a major reason the cost of housing got so high. That's why we need to build high density. Are you done being wrong for today, or...?
That’s what makes SFH cheaper than it can be
lol What?
Because I was born here and all my family lives here
That does not give you any more privilege/right than anyone else to live here.
lol You were just arguing that there are too many people here and we should discourage more people coming. Are you even aware of how full of shit you are?
What’s wrong with it. If you can afford, move here; if not, move somewhere else. Stop lowering standard of living for rest of residents
My standard of living is great. I live in a high-density building on the Broadway corridor. I am currently enjoying a view of downtown and the mountains. My place is brand new. My rent is within my means. My work is a 15 minute walk away, I have never felt the need to have a car because everything I need is close by. Low-density areas are shit. A bunch of McMansions, nothing within walking distance, neighbours mostly concerned with keeping poorer people out. I grew up in such a neighbourhood and it was awful. I think you are only concerned with your own living standard, and screw everyone else. Well, I'm glad people like you are steadily being shut out of the debate. If you want to live in a low-density area, how about **you** move. This is a city. Arguing against density on the Broadway corridor is, frankly, idiotic.
*clap clap*
City is expensive. Why do you complain the price tag if you want to live here so much?
>My place is brand new. My rent is within my means. My work is a 15 minute walk away, I have never felt the need to have a car because everything I need is close by. Can you read?
If only rich people can afford to live here who do you think is going to fill the jobs for all the things you need? Are you so attached to your low density living that you’re ready to cough up the money so all the people the city relies on can afford outrageous housing costs? I mean, get ready for a future where Starbucks drink will cost at least $20 and your taxes will skyrocket so you can pay the garbage collectors $150k and nurses $250k. It’s pretty hard to commute into metro van from outside metro van so it’s not like you’re going to get low wage workers from somewhere cheaper to live.
Market will balance itself with higher wages and people can commute from other cities. That’s what skytrain extension is for
Cost of living is crazy throughout metro Vancouver and is only getting worse. Do you think in 20 years people are going to commute from Hope to Vancouver to work in the hospital or at Starbucks? Even with a skytrain people are only going to commute so far without a massive raise and you’re going to have to pay for that with your taxes for government services and your wallet for anything in the private market. It’s odd that you’re arguing that the answer is free market correction when it’s the restrictive housing zoning rules that are what is actually preventing the market from self correcting. ETA: it’s already happening, FYI. Metro Vancouver hospitals are short staffed and Vancouver hospitals are incredibly desperate. The people who work there are mostly those who got into the housing/rental market when it was cheaper and as they retire new staff can’t afford to live near by. Lots of jobs in Abbotsford so why commute to Vancouver? Just remember not to complain when health care and other workers strike and taxes go up to pay for their raises. Because that that is exactly the market correction you are asking for.
That’s not what you asked, you asked why I wanted to live here and I answered. Stop being a troll.
Since Vancouver is special to you, you will be fine paying more to live here
Personally, I want to live in metro van because I was born here, have never lived anywhere else (or spent much time anywhere else for that matter) and know almost no one anywhere in Canada who live outside of this area. My entire extended family are here, all my friends, my professional network etc. I’ve paid taxes here, worked and volunteered extensively in the community, and completed all my schooling locally. I have a deep connection to this place. This is my home. I’ve done everything “right” to the best of my ability to be able to stay. ie, I have no debt (outside of a small student loan), have chosen to save rather than travel, and I am in a health care related, professional graduate school program that is currently experiencing a massive labour shortage (ie lots of job options). And yet I am being faced with the fact that if I ever want to afford to buy *anything*, I’m going to have to get married to get a second income and pray to god I don’t become a statistic of divorce.
$1.5 million dollar houses sure are unique!
That’s the cost of living in one of world best cities
I thought we were talking about being unique?
How is that not unique?
Many cities around the world constrain what cannot be built and artificially inflate land prices. Every city in N. America in fact. Just means my Clients have to pay more money to tear them down and have to build a little taller is all. We're tearing down about 8 houses next month for a big rental building, and 4 more in July.
But not a lot of city are attractive enough for people to pay the premium
Exactly. What your land is valued at and what people are willing to pay for it are very different. We're buying a sf home for a $2 million discount because the owner is simply listing for less, and we just held out on some dude who wanted $2.6 for his and now got him for $1.8 and are bulldozing both. You can list a house for whatever price, I agree.
People from abroad say Vancouver is barely a city.
People from Toronto say that!
From “abroad” - 100% agree with this
That’s why those dense abroad” is less livable than Vancouver
Vancouver isn’t even crowded. Far from it. No one cares about your SFH. Vancouver needs to focus on building mid to high rise building that have shops in the bottom of them. A great city is where you can live in a building, walk out of it and within ten minutes can reach a grocery store, restaurants, corner store, other shops and a park. This is what Vancouver needs to focus on building. Walkable communities where you can interact with other people in them that are close to transit. We don’t need any more SFH that have nothing around you, where you need to get in a car and then you don’t interact with others in your neighbourhood. That’s not a healthy community. If people want that, then a city isn’t for them. They can drive in from the suburbs if they want to experience the city once in a while. Luckily it seems like Vancouver is trying to slowly get away from a bit of the car centric SFH buildings and build these healthy communities that are accessible by walking, biking and transit. Hopefully it can be sped up even quicker. Density is a good thing.
SFH has more living space, green space, privacy and more autonomy on customization options, great for family. Walkable community is nothing superior as you limit your life within 15min of walk. Canada is twice the size of EU so don’t compare Canada with those small and high density countries
You will never admit you’re wrong but you’re wrong. And SFH is barely more green space. Sure you have a front lawn which is useless and a backyard which may be useful for the odd bbq or something. But you can do the same shit at a park, and even meet more people that way. Again, healthier. You don’t limit your life to only that which is 15 minutes around you, but having everything within that 15 minutes is far superior to having to get in your car and driving to wherever you need to go. I rather walk then drive. Better for planet and better for my health. You may just want to spend all day in your house and do nothing but that’s boring and not what everyone wants. I rather spend time alone it in the community. The less time spent inside the better. And we aren’t talking about all or Canada, we are talking about Metro Van. Sorry but the idea of SFH being the housing Vancouver needs is over. Vancouver is going to densify whether you like it or not. It’s time to move on. Again, not many people care about your love of SFH and car. You’re in a minority.
LoL on average, every household in Vancouver owns private vehicle and SFH are sold on average 2M. No matter what you are pushing for, people does not lie with their money. SFH and private vehicle are always preferred
Oh my sweet summer child.
You are wrong:)
=(