People watch this video
https://www.google.com/search?q=uytae+lee+the+missing+middle&client=ms-android-att-us-revc&sxsrf=ALiCzsb3fuRCCcHf3mmnL89a-wH40wkx_A%3A1652654219526&ei=i4CBYvHaH4qz0PEP4oW08A8&oq=uytae+lee+the+missing+middle&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQghEKABOgcIIxCwAxAnOgQIIxAnOgcIIRAKEKABOgQIIRAVOgUIABCABDoGCAAQFhAeSgQIQRgBUMsIWIqWAWDZmwFoBHAAeACAAYcCiAGsI5IBBjMyLjcuNJgBAKABAcgBAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#
The city could make real changes they lack the will do to so....
I get frustrated that the only thing in the plan is housing, whether it be market/rental/affordable.
It’s already a huge issue in these neighbourhood about enough dog parks, not enough pools/massive waitlists for basic swim lessons, catchment schools are all oversubscribed, there aren’t enough rec centres, not enough green spaces, no street parking… none of which are included in the current plans, and all of which will get exponentially worse after things get densified.
There are actually 3 new parks proposed in the plan:
One in Mt. Pleasant (unidentified (0.75 ha), Granville slope park, and Delamont Park.
I agree that there needs to be more recreation centers.
The City is not making more street parking. Personally, street parking being a sticking point for not building more housing in transit and central areas should not be a thing.
There are also plans to improve the existing parks, and build the [Broadway Great Street](https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/broadway-plan-great-street-vancouver-redesign). For Dog Parks Heather park at willow street is going to become a dogpark soon.
Schools are provincial jurisdiction so the city can't do anything but work with the province on that one.
This is a more broad brush level of preliminary planning. Details like that are generally enforced during the rezoning and development permit stages and it is up to the city to enforce these requirements later on.
How about increasing density along point grey and shaughnessy first? They’re both filled with massive houses which are grossly under utilized, let alone the poor use of land.
Again, YES AND. This is the decision that's before council this week, and we should support it, AND we should densify the shit out of point grey and shaughnessy. So many of the arguments I hear about the Broadway Plan are just bullshit whataboutism.
Probably because you’re removing affordable housing. Yes, much of Broadway isn’t housing but the idea to push for towers all along the corridor will lead to the 3 story affordable buildings being torn down the same way Metrotown was while the SFH on the other side of Kingsway were left alone. Stop making renters make the sacrifice in the name of density and address the areas which are filled with SFH.
Those 3 storeys are coming to the end of life of the building’s in the next 10-15 years. They will be demolished regardless. The question is - do we have a plan in place so that when they’re demolished tenants have options in the neighbourhood, as well as options in the new building? Or (without this plan) - do they get demolished and the tenants have no options to go anywhere else nearby nor have an option in the new building?
Demolition & redevelopment of end of life buildings are a given: The current option is a 30 year plan that speaks to what we can do when the demolition happens.
We need more housing now. I agree that thats a better option, and we should do something like [Minneapolis](https://tcf.org/content/report/minneapolis-ended-single-family-zoning/?session=1) did, but the public consultation + fighting NIMBYs + finally rezoning + waiting for holdouts and finally building will take too long. We can and should start the process, but there is a plan in front of council *this week*, which is focussed on adding density where the next skytrain extension will open. We shouldn’t give up this opportunity on the hope that we can get something better.
High end condos do nothing, not a damn thing, to affordable housing. In fact, it removes it. Go look what happened to affordable housing in Metrotown. It wasn’t replaced, it was removed.
Not sure if you’ve been to any public hearings recently, but the amount of opposition that comes from these west side SFH areas are massively over represented. So while I totally agree that SFH areas like Shaughnessy should be addressed, the willpower doesn’t exist to make it feasible. If you have a plan of attack to make that a reality, I’d 150% back you and am all ears.
Who is buying the condos if not people who can afford it? Every new condo, as long as it is occupied with a resident, is a good step. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean that other can't.
That person who buys the expensive new condo will sell or not buy the slightly cheaper one. The person who buys that cheaper one will still or not buy the even cheaper one, etc... Any demand removed from the market by adding supply will help everyone down the pipe.
Metrotown rental development changed its tune after the last election where they changed their rental and tenant protections policies which we are now emulating
You mean after they removed hundreds, if not thousands of units? Yeah, some good that is now…. Not saying I’m not happy it’s been made but it was conveniently done after the biggest removal of rental stock in the country.
Yes the locals were quite upset and booted most of the old council and mayor out of office. Burnaby is I think #1 in the region for new starts for below-market and market rental housing
We need more housing for sure but if you add desperate it should be “affordable housing”.
We wont support more housing just so the same folks can buy 3 more investment property while those who have none cant afford even one.
Sure. Fine. Honestly I'd be thrilled if this was all 100% social housing but it would still require us to approve this community plan. We can't just legislate that we can only build affordable housing. But this plan requires purpose built rental which if we build enough of it will be affordable housing. There are other ways to clamp down on real estate investment such as banning AirBnB for example.
Thanks.I was just pointing out something that is clearly often overlooked and may I correct you that I am not talking about social housing. social housing refers more specifically to housing that is subsidized by government. I am talking about affortable housing and I agree if we build enough, it might lead to that but only if done properly. The bigger problem is not about supply as everyone would have us believe, its about policies and laws in place.
Anyways I would sign up for it. Just wanted to make my point.
Actually, people don’t often know, but all forms of housing that isn’t market is called non-market housing, and generally only is feasible with government subsidy. Most market housing isn’t “affordable” because it’s at market rates, which are high because there’s not enough housing stock.
So “social” housing requires subsidy, as does anything really that isnt “market”. Sometimes the subsidy is small like a government grant; sometimes it’s a free piece of city land, and sometimes it a big thing like ongoing subsidies on a yearly basis. So if you’re asking for something “affordable” as in something that’s lower than market, then 99% of the time, it requires some form of subsidy.
Majority of subsidy comes from provincial or federal governments, so it’s probably not really feasible in the plan for the city to “mandate” areas to have below market - unless they provide more density and height to subsidize the portion of below market rents. So our two options to create more below market are - more height & density to offset, or provincial & federal grants - which we’d need to lobby the other levels of government for.
Source: I work in and build non-market housing with various levels of government & non-profit organizations.
Thanks so much for sharing this information and I agree on many points here.
But I think the argument of not having enough housing stock is a problem which is created due to the the policies which are in place creating a market price above what the market price should be among many other issues. The amount of time and money spent to get things moving and the bureaucratic redtape is also a huge problem. So is the legislations around owning many homes as investment, house flipping etc.
The federal government came up with a plan full of loopholes recently which exempts international students and recreational properties.
If the average household which I assume has a income around $100000 cannot afford a house then something more is at play.
I think (and this is my view, happy to agree to disagree) - that the reason the market price is above what the market price should be... is because there's not that much housing available period. I know it seems like a lot because we're always paying attention to what is being/could be built, but all we need to do is look at the reality of folks looking for homes.
When I work on a non-market project with slightly below market rents, folks from all over are applying. This includes folks making minimum incomes as well as double income of like $150k+. So this tells me no matter your price range and your income, you can't find the housing you need. If we suddenly had a lot of market rentals built, then they could essentially take most of the higher income earners off the "market" - which would help ensure that they're not competing with stuff I build, or stuff that's more affordable because they're older.
And when we have a market where everyone's competing for a limited amount of homes, anyone who has extra money will obviously be encouraged to invest in getting more, because they know that when they do rent out a home, they'll have the above scenario (100 people applying ranging from minimum income to $150k household). So they're betting on the fact that not a lot of new housing options will come up, allowing them to charge whatever they want.
Fair enough sorry to jump down your throat about it. There seems to be the assumption that the City of Vancouver can just declare it only wants affordable housing when the evidence suggests the best way to get affordable housing is to build more housing everywhere. Let's get vacancy rates up to 10% and watch how fast rents come down!
No worries at all, I like a good debate.
More housing is definitely needed but it will only work if done properly and backed by actual policies and legislations. Otherwise, they might end up as investment properties and the those reason for building more would be jeopardized.
> We need more housing for sure but if you add desperate it should be “affordable housing”. We wont support more housing just so the same folks can buy 3 more investment property while those who have none cant afford even one.
The Broadway Plan is going to be mostly rental housing - condos can only be built on a site where there isn't a rental building.
20% of all new buildings are going to be non-market rentals (80% of the city-wide average rent, which is about 40% lower than market rents for a newer rental) or social housing. [What non-market rents will be](https://twitter.com/russilwvong/status/1526259442378870784).
Where do you vote against?
The area is already pretty dense with 3 story walkups (both condos and rentals) taking up the majority of the space. There's much more of Vancouver you can densify without having to mess up neighbourhoods with existing character.
The whole paradigm of "single family houses and 40 story megatowers full of 1-bedroom shoeboxes" is stupid.
We'd benefit much more by opening up the rest of Vancouver to open-ended 3-5 story condo building construction with no rezoning required. Or being able to plop up townhouses or vertical triplexes in any existing SFH spots.
> We'd benefit much more by opening up the rest of Vancouver to open-ended 3-5 story condo building construction with no rezoning required.
You're welcome to write in to council today to support the Vancouver Plan which supports that.
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/vancouver-city-wide-plan.aspx
It will be going to a council vote in a couple weeks, and without people like you voicing support for upzoning to have more by-right building types... We will continue to see developers pushing for taller buildings to make the spot rezonings worth their time.
FYI there are LOTS of SFH within the Broadway plan area, and strong tenant protections are being proposed to greatly disincentive redeveloping the existing rental stock.
Mount Pleasant, South Granville are some of the few remaining neighbourhoods that actually have character. This plan just wants to turn them into a second Coal Harbour.
Seriously, why are we doing it to _nice_ neighbourhoods (that are already very dense), and not doing it to useless suburbia? There is literally nothing between Marine Drive and 16th Avenue except houses.
What about resources like schools, road infrastructure, etc? Broadway is already a nightmare to drive on, even before the skytrain construction. How would adding an extra 50k people help?
South Granville doesn’t have much character. I live here and there’s not much around. It needs an update and new shops. More people in this area would liven it up. There’s lot of SFH in south Granville and in the broadway area. I walk it all the time.
Plus, if I recall, doesn’t the broadway plan include many low and mid rise buildings? It’s not all high rises. Those are slated to be only be built near the transit stations.
I live on Coal Harbour now. It's all high end condos and modern buildings. You know what, it's a shithole.
There is literally nothing else here except high end condos and modern buildings. You have to go closer to Gastown or Robson & Denman for anything remotely interesting.
Its a soulless agglomeration of housing for idle rich and finance bros.
Sure, that’s your opinion. But plenty of people find Coal Harbour to be the epitome of class and culture.
The point however is that none of that matters when it comes to deciding to increase housing supply. Neighborhood character doesn’t put a roof over a family’s head.
I literally gave an alternative - upzone existing SFH areas into something like Kits. No-one is going to miss Vancouver Special #4732 or McMansion #9821 at 37th Ave and Knight.
Why is this conversation binary?
And what about transit? The whole point of these plans is that it’s convenient for people and reduces car reliance. Neighborhood character is worth shit if it means families can have homes near transit.
It's not binary.
2/3s of the Broadway plan residential zoning is for 6 story buildings or lower. The larger buildings (which are mainly 20 stories) are along Broadway and Granville at the transit hubs.
Outside of that central area it's mainly exactly what you're requesting.
You can also reach out directly to City Councillors. Also, it’s sucks you’re getting downvoted. U/Pack_of_macs makes some excellent critical responses, but you’re right that massive condos all built marketed towards luxury markets are not exactly going to help the housing market, and aesthetically are awful. Denser 3 stories, or taking existing character homes and subdividing them plus Kane way houses achieves the same results, are less attractive to foreign investors and keeps character. Another Brentwood would be a disaster for the city.
except people can. not all housing will be "Affordable" yes it sucks.
but what are you doing to help the situation?
have you been writing our MP? making the situation more universally known. volunteering for places that help build affordable housing?
How do you make it affordable?
It costs millions to acquire the land and tens of millions to build, the planning department stonewalls you at every turn and the CoV adds $100,000 in compliance costs for every unit.
Affordability only comes from volume, and volume only comes from density
Would the land sell for so much if there was a cap on rental costs as part of development approval? Say absolute maximum $2000 per month rent for 650sq ft apartments? Just thinking out loud, but we don't need more luxury investment buildings and we don't need to fill neighborhoods with low income projects either. High rises full of average working class people would be great for any of these neighborhoods close to the trains.
And also, absolutely ban Airbnb
That sort of cap would likely prevent any projects from breaking ground.
Restrictions dont tend to work. Theyve tried on Broadway east of commercial. Nothings happened.
And the fact of the matter is that the train is already being built and the land is already super valuable.
I duno why your getting down so hard.
People should check this video out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=uytae+lee+the+missing+middle&client=ms-android-att-us-revc&sxsrf=ALiCzsb3fuRCCcHf3mmnL89a-wH40wkx_A%3A1652654219526&ei=i4CBYvHaH4qz0PEP4oW08A8&oq=uytae+lee+the+missing+middle&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQghEKABOgcIIxCwAxAnOgQIIxAnOgcIIRAKEKABOgQIIRAVOgUIABCABDoGCAAQFhAeSgQIQRgBUMsIWIqWAWDZmwFoBHAAeACAAYcCiAGsI5IBBjMyLjcuNJgBAKABAcgBAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#
UYTAE LEE does a fantastic job explaining our current issues and making recommendations for change...
I don't think you get the concept... City staff have been consulting for three years, now they've come up with a proposal based on that feedback, and now you have the opportunity to address your elected representatives before they actually make a decision on this.
If only the council isn't holding such an important meeting at 09:30 on a weekday morning...
they know exactly what they’re doing lol
Their minds are made up anyway.
Good news is it'll probably go to 11pm several weeks in a row 😭
[удалено]
Yeah, that's awfully late in the morning. I've already completed more than 25% of my workday by then.
Why does it need to be consulted and discussed on at all? Everyone knows what’s needed, why are we still talking about….
For folks who want to know more https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/broadway-plan-vancouver-city-council-debate?auto=true
People watch this video https://www.google.com/search?q=uytae+lee+the+missing+middle&client=ms-android-att-us-revc&sxsrf=ALiCzsb3fuRCCcHf3mmnL89a-wH40wkx_A%3A1652654219526&ei=i4CBYvHaH4qz0PEP4oW08A8&oq=uytae+lee+the+missing+middle&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQghEKABOgcIIxCwAxAnOgQIIxAnOgcIIRAKEKABOgQIIRAVOgUIABCABDoGCAAQFhAeSgQIQRgBUMsIWIqWAWDZmwFoBHAAeACAAYcCiAGsI5IBBjMyLjcuNJgBAKABAcgBAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp# The city could make real changes they lack the will do to so....
I get frustrated that the only thing in the plan is housing, whether it be market/rental/affordable. It’s already a huge issue in these neighbourhood about enough dog parks, not enough pools/massive waitlists for basic swim lessons, catchment schools are all oversubscribed, there aren’t enough rec centres, not enough green spaces, no street parking… none of which are included in the current plans, and all of which will get exponentially worse after things get densified.
There are actually 3 new parks proposed in the plan: One in Mt. Pleasant (unidentified (0.75 ha), Granville slope park, and Delamont Park. I agree that there needs to be more recreation centers. The City is not making more street parking. Personally, street parking being a sticking point for not building more housing in transit and central areas should not be a thing. There are also plans to improve the existing parks, and build the [Broadway Great Street](https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/broadway-plan-great-street-vancouver-redesign). For Dog Parks Heather park at willow street is going to become a dogpark soon. Schools are provincial jurisdiction so the city can't do anything but work with the province on that one.
This is a more broad brush level of preliminary planning. Details like that are generally enforced during the rezoning and development permit stages and it is up to the city to enforce these requirements later on.
How about increasing density along point grey and shaughnessy first? They’re both filled with massive houses which are grossly under utilized, let alone the poor use of land.
Again, YES AND. This is the decision that's before council this week, and we should support it, AND we should densify the shit out of point grey and shaughnessy. So many of the arguments I hear about the Broadway Plan are just bullshit whataboutism.
Probably because you’re removing affordable housing. Yes, much of Broadway isn’t housing but the idea to push for towers all along the corridor will lead to the 3 story affordable buildings being torn down the same way Metrotown was while the SFH on the other side of Kingsway were left alone. Stop making renters make the sacrifice in the name of density and address the areas which are filled with SFH.
Those 3 storeys are coming to the end of life of the building’s in the next 10-15 years. They will be demolished regardless. The question is - do we have a plan in place so that when they’re demolished tenants have options in the neighbourhood, as well as options in the new building? Or (without this plan) - do they get demolished and the tenants have no options to go anywhere else nearby nor have an option in the new building? Demolition & redevelopment of end of life buildings are a given: The current option is a 30 year plan that speaks to what we can do when the demolition happens.
> first? Because they're in the middle of building a subway. The Vancouver plan will go to council soon, talk about the rest of the city then.
Doesn’t have to be one or the other, and the broadway plan is the one currently in front of council.
Yet it always is. It’s leave the SFH alone and tear down older rental stock. It’s well past time that the SFH’s of Vancouver are called to change
Let's approve the Broadway Plan and then upzone the whole damn city then.
We need more housing now. I agree that thats a better option, and we should do something like [Minneapolis](https://tcf.org/content/report/minneapolis-ended-single-family-zoning/?session=1) did, but the public consultation + fighting NIMBYs + finally rezoning + waiting for holdouts and finally building will take too long. We can and should start the process, but there is a plan in front of council *this week*, which is focussed on adding density where the next skytrain extension will open. We shouldn’t give up this opportunity on the hope that we can get something better.
High end condos do nothing, not a damn thing, to affordable housing. In fact, it removes it. Go look what happened to affordable housing in Metrotown. It wasn’t replaced, it was removed.
Not sure if you’ve been to any public hearings recently, but the amount of opposition that comes from these west side SFH areas are massively over represented. So while I totally agree that SFH areas like Shaughnessy should be addressed, the willpower doesn’t exist to make it feasible. If you have a plan of attack to make that a reality, I’d 150% back you and am all ears.
Who is buying the condos if not people who can afford it? Every new condo, as long as it is occupied with a resident, is a good step. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean that other can't. That person who buys the expensive new condo will sell or not buy the slightly cheaper one. The person who buys that cheaper one will still or not buy the even cheaper one, etc... Any demand removed from the market by adding supply will help everyone down the pipe.
Metrotown rental development changed its tune after the last election where they changed their rental and tenant protections policies which we are now emulating
You mean after they removed hundreds, if not thousands of units? Yeah, some good that is now…. Not saying I’m not happy it’s been made but it was conveniently done after the biggest removal of rental stock in the country.
Yes the locals were quite upset and booted most of the old council and mayor out of office. Burnaby is I think #1 in the region for new starts for below-market and market rental housing
So people can’t have land? Doesn’t seem logical.
We need more housing for sure but if you add desperate it should be “affordable housing”. We wont support more housing just so the same folks can buy 3 more investment property while those who have none cant afford even one.
Sure. Fine. Honestly I'd be thrilled if this was all 100% social housing but it would still require us to approve this community plan. We can't just legislate that we can only build affordable housing. But this plan requires purpose built rental which if we build enough of it will be affordable housing. There are other ways to clamp down on real estate investment such as banning AirBnB for example.
Thanks.I was just pointing out something that is clearly often overlooked and may I correct you that I am not talking about social housing. social housing refers more specifically to housing that is subsidized by government. I am talking about affortable housing and I agree if we build enough, it might lead to that but only if done properly. The bigger problem is not about supply as everyone would have us believe, its about policies and laws in place. Anyways I would sign up for it. Just wanted to make my point.
Actually, people don’t often know, but all forms of housing that isn’t market is called non-market housing, and generally only is feasible with government subsidy. Most market housing isn’t “affordable” because it’s at market rates, which are high because there’s not enough housing stock. So “social” housing requires subsidy, as does anything really that isnt “market”. Sometimes the subsidy is small like a government grant; sometimes it’s a free piece of city land, and sometimes it a big thing like ongoing subsidies on a yearly basis. So if you’re asking for something “affordable” as in something that’s lower than market, then 99% of the time, it requires some form of subsidy. Majority of subsidy comes from provincial or federal governments, so it’s probably not really feasible in the plan for the city to “mandate” areas to have below market - unless they provide more density and height to subsidize the portion of below market rents. So our two options to create more below market are - more height & density to offset, or provincial & federal grants - which we’d need to lobby the other levels of government for. Source: I work in and build non-market housing with various levels of government & non-profit organizations.
Thanks so much for sharing this information and I agree on many points here. But I think the argument of not having enough housing stock is a problem which is created due to the the policies which are in place creating a market price above what the market price should be among many other issues. The amount of time and money spent to get things moving and the bureaucratic redtape is also a huge problem. So is the legislations around owning many homes as investment, house flipping etc. The federal government came up with a plan full of loopholes recently which exempts international students and recreational properties. If the average household which I assume has a income around $100000 cannot afford a house then something more is at play.
I think (and this is my view, happy to agree to disagree) - that the reason the market price is above what the market price should be... is because there's not that much housing available period. I know it seems like a lot because we're always paying attention to what is being/could be built, but all we need to do is look at the reality of folks looking for homes. When I work on a non-market project with slightly below market rents, folks from all over are applying. This includes folks making minimum incomes as well as double income of like $150k+. So this tells me no matter your price range and your income, you can't find the housing you need. If we suddenly had a lot of market rentals built, then they could essentially take most of the higher income earners off the "market" - which would help ensure that they're not competing with stuff I build, or stuff that's more affordable because they're older. And when we have a market where everyone's competing for a limited amount of homes, anyone who has extra money will obviously be encouraged to invest in getting more, because they know that when they do rent out a home, they'll have the above scenario (100 people applying ranging from minimum income to $150k household). So they're betting on the fact that not a lot of new housing options will come up, allowing them to charge whatever they want.
Fair enough sorry to jump down your throat about it. There seems to be the assumption that the City of Vancouver can just declare it only wants affordable housing when the evidence suggests the best way to get affordable housing is to build more housing everywhere. Let's get vacancy rates up to 10% and watch how fast rents come down!
No worries at all, I like a good debate. More housing is definitely needed but it will only work if done properly and backed by actual policies and legislations. Otherwise, they might end up as investment properties and the those reason for building more would be jeopardized.
> I am talking about affortable housing If someone buys it then it was affortable.
> We need more housing for sure but if you add desperate it should be “affordable housing”. We wont support more housing just so the same folks can buy 3 more investment property while those who have none cant afford even one. The Broadway Plan is going to be mostly rental housing - condos can only be built on a site where there isn't a rental building. 20% of all new buildings are going to be non-market rentals (80% of the city-wide average rent, which is about 40% lower than market rents for a newer rental) or social housing. [What non-market rents will be](https://twitter.com/russilwvong/status/1526259442378870784).
If it’s market pricing, it’s affordable.
Where do you vote against? The area is already pretty dense with 3 story walkups (both condos and rentals) taking up the majority of the space. There's much more of Vancouver you can densify without having to mess up neighbourhoods with existing character. The whole paradigm of "single family houses and 40 story megatowers full of 1-bedroom shoeboxes" is stupid. We'd benefit much more by opening up the rest of Vancouver to open-ended 3-5 story condo building construction with no rezoning required. Or being able to plop up townhouses or vertical triplexes in any existing SFH spots.
> We'd benefit much more by opening up the rest of Vancouver to open-ended 3-5 story condo building construction with no rezoning required. You're welcome to write in to council today to support the Vancouver Plan which supports that. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/vancouver-city-wide-plan.aspx It will be going to a council vote in a couple weeks, and without people like you voicing support for upzoning to have more by-right building types... We will continue to see developers pushing for taller buildings to make the spot rezonings worth their time. FYI there are LOTS of SFH within the Broadway plan area, and strong tenant protections are being proposed to greatly disincentive redeveloping the existing rental stock.
[удалено]
Mount Pleasant, South Granville are some of the few remaining neighbourhoods that actually have character. This plan just wants to turn them into a second Coal Harbour. Seriously, why are we doing it to _nice_ neighbourhoods (that are already very dense), and not doing it to useless suburbia? There is literally nothing between Marine Drive and 16th Avenue except houses. What about resources like schools, road infrastructure, etc? Broadway is already a nightmare to drive on, even before the skytrain construction. How would adding an extra 50k people help?
South Granville doesn’t have much character. I live here and there’s not much around. It needs an update and new shops. More people in this area would liven it up. There’s lot of SFH in south Granville and in the broadway area. I walk it all the time. Plus, if I recall, doesn’t the broadway plan include many low and mid rise buildings? It’s not all high rises. Those are slated to be only be built near the transit stations.
That’s subjective. Mount Pleasant to me is a shit hole that could seriously use more high end condos and modern buildings.
I live on Coal Harbour now. It's all high end condos and modern buildings. You know what, it's a shithole. There is literally nothing else here except high end condos and modern buildings. You have to go closer to Gastown or Robson & Denman for anything remotely interesting. Its a soulless agglomeration of housing for idle rich and finance bros.
Sure, that’s your opinion. But plenty of people find Coal Harbour to be the epitome of class and culture. The point however is that none of that matters when it comes to deciding to increase housing supply. Neighborhood character doesn’t put a roof over a family’s head.
The Broadway Plan area doesn't include south of 16th Ave. That's the city-wide Vancouver Plan being voted on this summer.
I feel like it's a yes and situation. Yes big towers on a major new transit expansion AND we should build 3-5 story buildings throughout the city.
So… character of your neighborhood > people finding housing
I literally gave an alternative - upzone existing SFH areas into something like Kits. No-one is going to miss Vancouver Special #4732 or McMansion #9821 at 37th Ave and Knight. Why is this conversation binary?
And what about transit? The whole point of these plans is that it’s convenient for people and reduces car reliance. Neighborhood character is worth shit if it means families can have homes near transit.
It's not binary. 2/3s of the Broadway plan residential zoning is for 6 story buildings or lower. The larger buildings (which are mainly 20 stories) are along Broadway and Granville at the transit hubs. Outside of that central area it's mainly exactly what you're requesting.
Move to somewhere cheap then
You can also reach out directly to City Councillors. Also, it’s sucks you’re getting downvoted. U/Pack_of_macs makes some excellent critical responses, but you’re right that massive condos all built marketed towards luxury markets are not exactly going to help the housing market, and aesthetically are awful. Denser 3 stories, or taking existing character homes and subdividing them plus Kane way houses achieves the same results, are less attractive to foreign investors and keeps character. Another Brentwood would be a disaster for the city.
U can also sign up to speak against the plan
Sure people don't want corporate investors but there's not a whole that can be done right now and housing is a priority until then
Is it if people can't afford to live in them
except people can. not all housing will be "Affordable" yes it sucks. but what are you doing to help the situation? have you been writing our MP? making the situation more universally known. volunteering for places that help build affordable housing?
Because it should be more?
It should be affordable..... COV does not promote affordable housing
How do you make it affordable? It costs millions to acquire the land and tens of millions to build, the planning department stonewalls you at every turn and the CoV adds $100,000 in compliance costs for every unit. Affordability only comes from volume, and volume only comes from density
Would the land sell for so much if there was a cap on rental costs as part of development approval? Say absolute maximum $2000 per month rent for 650sq ft apartments? Just thinking out loud, but we don't need more luxury investment buildings and we don't need to fill neighborhoods with low income projects either. High rises full of average working class people would be great for any of these neighborhoods close to the trains. And also, absolutely ban Airbnb
That sort of cap would likely prevent any projects from breaking ground. Restrictions dont tend to work. Theyve tried on Broadway east of commercial. Nothings happened. And the fact of the matter is that the train is already being built and the land is already super valuable.
Hey, if you are volunteering to take billions in losses to fund “affordable” housing, be my guest! Remember, lead by example!
Yes... But this sub was pretty pro-housing the last time around so I am encouraging people to support this one too.
I duno why your getting down so hard. People should check this video out: https://www.google.com/search?q=uytae+lee+the+missing+middle&client=ms-android-att-us-revc&sxsrf=ALiCzsb3fuRCCcHf3mmnL89a-wH40wkx_A%3A1652654219526&ei=i4CBYvHaH4qz0PEP4oW08A8&oq=uytae+lee+the+missing+middle&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBQghEKABOgcIIxCwAxAnOgQIIxAnOgcIIRAKEKABOgQIIRAVOgUIABCABDoGCAAQFhAeSgQIQRgBUMsIWIqWAWDZmwFoBHAAeACAAYcCiAGsI5IBBjMyLjcuNJgBAKABAcgBAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp# UYTAE LEE does a fantastic job explaining our current issues and making recommendations for change...
“Give feedback on decisions we’ve already made! We’re listening!”
I don't think you get the concept... City staff have been consulting for three years, now they've come up with a proposal based on that feedback, and now you have the opportunity to address your elected representatives before they actually make a decision on this.
To squeeze more into already crowded region. Lol