One of the priorities that Mayor Gregor Robertson set out for this term is to explore new ways to create affordable housing in Vancouver.
That will be one of this administration’s toughest challenges. The other goals he has — promoting a Vancouver economy, pushing to become “the greenest city,” and more — are relatively easy in comparison.
But trying to create affordable housing in a city this size requires huge dollars or sweeping changes in land-use policy in order to do more than a few token units. And whenever cities try to do this, they also raise the question of who benefits. When developers get incentives to build lower-cost housing, do they benefit unduly? And who gets to live in the new lower-cost units? Does that small group get a benefit that others resent?
Those are the real questions that the mayor’s blue-ribbon task force on affordable housing has to answer. Last time, as the Vision council rushed in to creating its Short Term Incentives for Rental program, it didn’t.
The council pulled together a similar group of developers, housing advocates, architects, planners and more to come up with that plan. It swept aside the concerns of advocates like Brent Granby that the STIR program didn’t really provide low-cost rental, only market rental, and that would make people doubt it. As it turned out, he was very right, at least when it came to the West End.
Other smaller towns around North America have successfully created local worker housing — typically in small resort towns like Whistler or Aspen where there’s an easily understood problem of needing to provide affordable housing for the people who work in the resorts. The city’s two major universities have done something similar on their campuses in order to be able to attract and retain faculty.
But those small towns and universities operate in a simpler world.
Creating the kinds of affordable housing the Simon Fraser University or Whistler have is harder is a big, complex city: more dollars required, more possibilities for public misunderstanding, harder to draw the line around who the housing should be for.
So this time, besides just the mechanisms for creating low-cost housing, the panel has to address some much more basic questions if a new program is going to be accepted.
Among them:
1. How can you demonstrate to the public exactly what incentives developers get, in dollar terms, and what the public gets back for that? If there isn’t some extremely transparent format for doing this, there will be another WEN-style backlash where those who don’t understand the housing market will spread the word that developers are getting freebies.
As tedious as it is, the public needs to have the chance to go through the numbers and to have conversations with planners and politicians, in advance of any policy, to talk about the pros and cons.
As we saw in the past three years, most of the public doesn’t get how the rental market works, why it’s important to have buildings with permanent rentals in them (as opposed to a shifting stock of condo units that investors may or may not rent out), and why builders have not been building purpose-built rentals.
2. How can you demonstrate to the public that, if the city comes up with some way of producing lower-cost housing, it is allocated fairly?
Should “key workers” — police, firefighters, teachers, health workers — get first access, the way London does it? Should it be on an income basis? What happens when a family’s income changes? How do you keep speculators out?
And how does the city ensure that the stock of lower-cost housing it creates doesn’t just disappear after the first generation buys in? At SFU, buyers get to buy housing in the Verdant project at 20 per cent below market. But then they have to sell to the next buyer at 20 per cent below market, so that the university can keep those units in a special pool forever. Is it possible for the city to set up something similar?
All those questions, and more, are the real dilemma.
99 responses so far ↓
1 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 9:59 am
“You’re taking this way to seriously and, if I may say so, personally. ”
You just outed yourself as a bully my friend. I doubt you see yourself that way, but it’s a classic technique for those who would excuse their behaviour rather than accept their comments could have an impact on others.
“In your posts here, you have consistently taken a particular position. ”
“Why would you expect others not to read your posts in the context of your previously expressed views?”
My support for improved cycling facilities really has no connection to my suggestion that we use under-utilized auto parking spots for temp housing. In fact, it actually would be an impediment to installing bike lanes in those same places (which I would also support), so my opinions on cycling should have no more impact on this discussion than my opinions on hem-lines for the Spring 2012 season, unless you care to use it as an example of the fact that I can see the prioritization of cycling facilities in the context of more important issues.
“this silly exchange”
It’s actually an important point for those of us who post under our own names and can be impacted financially when people propagate inaccurate characterizations of our perspective. If I let you wander around the Internet mis-representing and bullying me, any prospective client might find those comments and decide I’m not the guy for them, based on crap statements that cast me in a poor light.
2 IanS // Dec 9, 2011 at 11:01 am
“You just outed yourself as a bully my friend.”
If you say so.
“My support for improved cycling facilities really has no connection to my suggestion that we use under-utilized auto parking spots for temp housing. ”
I would answer that, but I suspect that would bring us full circle to the beginning of this discussion. So I’ll pass except to note that, once again, we will have to agree to disagree.
“It’s actually an important point for those of us who post under our own names and can be impacted financially when people propagate inaccurate characterizations of our perspective. If I let you wander around the Internet mis-representing and bullying me…”
And here we devolve from the silly to the bizarrely paranoid.
If you really think my comments on your postings will impact negatively on future employment, then I recommend you not use your full name while posting.
If you think my observation based on your comments will have any more negative impact on your future employment than the comments on which my observations are based, then I recommend you read your own posts.
And, if you think I’m bullying you, then I hope you never do run into a bully.
3 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 11:46 am
I’ve met my share of ‘real’ bullies Ian.
Sorry mate, but you’re fitting the description more and more with each post — in which you downplay my concerns as invalid while defending your actions as incapable of causing harm, ‘just a joke’ as it were.
“If you really think my comments on your postings will impact negatively on future employment, then I recommend you not use your full name while posting.”
I don’t know that they will or won’t but isn’t it sweet of you to take that risk for me? Oh, wait, you’re not risking anything here are you? Forcing people to have to choose anonymity is a step backwards from productive dialogue, and not an acceptable remedy for your online behaviour.
I’m happy to stand by my posts. I’m not keen to let you define me with your inaccurate portrayals.
4 IanS // Dec 9, 2011 at 12:54 pm
“Sorry mate, but you’re fitting the description more and more with each post — in which you downplay my concerns as invalid while defending your actions as incapable of causing harm, ‘just a joke’ as it were. ”
Well, I suppose that’s one way to look at it. Certainly, I suppose, if one accepts your initial premise, then I suppose you’re correct. Having said that, the whole “the fact you’re denying just proves it’s true” shtick is, while a proven tactic, a bit worn. IMO, anyway.
“I don’t know that they will or won’t but isn’t it sweet of you to take that risk for me? ”
Fair point. I apologize for forcing you to express your views here, using your own name. Oh, what? It’s your choice? Oh.. well, then, I withdraw the apology.
Again, if you honestly believe it’s an issue, feel free to take the most obvious possible step to protect yourself.
“Forcing people to have to choose anonymity is a step backwards from productive dialogue, and not an acceptable remedy for your online behaviour.”
I suggest you reread what I said and reflect on it. You may come to the understanding that I’m doing nothing of the sort.
As for offensive online behaviour, one of us is tossing around works like bully and hypocrite in this exchange and it’s not me.
“I’m happy to stand by my posts.”
Me too.
” I’m not keen to let you define me with your inaccurate portrayals.”
And I’m not keen to define you with inaccurate portrayals. I just don’t think I have.
5 Bill McCreery // Dec 9, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Thanks MB 48. You’re right about the ‘management’ aspect. And, it’s not just Charleson Park.
Getting back to the topic, delivering ‘affordable’ housing is not difficult, it just requires someone to cover the costs, or portions of it. And, that’s expensive, as our senior governments found out from their experiences in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. Nevertheless, there are a number of ways this can still be achieved. However, the numbers, even the 38,000+ that Vision say they want to create in the next 8 years will not alter the supply/demand equation to lower rents generally. Given Vancouver’s growth projections, demand will continue to exceed supply on all fronts. Therefore, housing costs will continue to increase.
More the reason why a new supply of affordable housing is necessary on an ongoing basis.
Others have referred to the difficulties of establishing fairness, delivering affordable housing to those who need it, etc. This is an extremely important, but also not straight forward component of the other side of the equation. The abuse of the co-ops should be reviewed so the lessons from that experience are not repeated (maybe CMHC can even start to rectify those situations).
The City needs to establish very clear objectives to ensure that the affordable housing, in whatever form that is created, goes to those who need it in the first instance as well as on an on-going basis. Defining who those individuals are will not be easy.
Another thorny bit is that the market housing being built in Vancouver is +/-90% studios, 1 beds + a few 2’s thrown in. There is an important segment of the market that requires more than a 1 or even a 2 bed unit on the 25th floor of a tower on Hornby. Consideration of this factor in deciding what types of housing will be built will also be challenging.
6 Joe Just Joe // Dec 9, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Is it now fair to say that you are Anti-Bully? Or will that label myself as being pro-lableling?
7 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Bill McCreery:
Guesstimate or opinion on when and whether this shortfall in co-op and similar housing will go away as the baby boomer demographic (which I assume makes up many of the co-op dwelling empty-nesters we’re discussing) moves into assisted living facilities or goes to meet their Maker?
Ian:
“And I’m not keen to define you with inaccurate portrayals. I just don’t think I have.”
At some point you have to accept that whatever your intent, it’s having a different result. You don’t get to choose whether or not someone feels wronged by your sarcastic and dismissive remarks. If your workplace offers any kind of training or workshops on effective communications, mediation, or conflict resolution, I would highly recommend you take it. It’s appears to me there’s a gap in your knowledge in this area and that’s why you’re continuing to defend your comments. Seriously dude. Your reasoning is way flawed on this topic if you think telling people to get a pseudonym is an appropriate response to unfair attacks and inaccurate portrayals of those who are willing to put their name to their posts.
8 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 2:09 pm
@Joe Just Joe
Is your comment for me? I’m not sure.
9 IanS // Dec 9, 2011 at 3:03 pm
@Chris Keam #57,
“At some point you have to accept that whatever your intent, it’s having a different result. ”
I do accept that. You’ve made it very clear. I confess to finding it strange that you would take umbrage at someone concluding, from your posts here, that you are anti-car, but I certainly do not dispute that you are doing so.
“You don’t get to choose whether or not someone feels wronged by your sarcastic and dismissive remarks.”
That’s right. You can feel wronged at anything you like. I don’t dispute that.
“If your workplace offers any kind of training or workshops on effective communications, mediation, or conflict resolution, I would highly recommend you take it. ”
Thank you. I will give your suggestion all of the consideration it deserves.
And, to reciprocate, if you ever have the chance to hone up on your reading comprehension, I suggest you do so. Among other things, if you honestly believe that I was telling you to get a pseudonym, then you need it.
10 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 3:13 pm
It’s getting painful watching your ego lead you around by the nose Ian. You blew it with your first post to me and none of the subsequent ones are doing anything other than reinforce your first error. Since you know me so well, surely you must realize I’m so f*cking obstinate that I won’t quit defending myself no matter how many frosty faux thank yous you fling my way.
11 spartikus // Dec 9, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Don’t make me turn your conversation into an animated film.
I have the technology.
12 IanS // Dec 9, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I don’t know what to tell you Chris. I disagree with you. I don’t agree with your characterization of my post. I don’t agree I “blew it”. And I don’t believe I’m wrong in my objective assessment of your position, whatever your subjective views may be.
Do you even accept it’s possible that a person reading your posts here might, objectively, conclude that you are anti-car?
And I don’t claim to know you well, or at all other than what you post here, but I will agree that you seem pretty obstinate. I’m not sure why that is a virtue for you and a vice for me, but I’m sure you’ll tell me quickly enough.
13 IanS // Dec 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm
@spartikus #61,
Not necessary. Chris and I are handling that on our own, quite nicely.
14 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Dude:
You can ‘disagree’ with me all you want. But you don’t get to tell me how I should feel about your sarcastic, unfounded assumptions or whether I’m ‘paranoid’ in thinking your unnecessary and off-topic comments will impact my pocketbook.
Anyone ‘objectively’ reading my posts would see that I support safer cycling facilities and sensible use of all transportation options. Anything else is presumption and assumption. As I have said repeatedly, an idea should be judged on its merits alone, and the person making the suggestion is irrelevant. If you feel differently, then you shouldn’t post under an alias.
15 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm
“thinking your unnecessary and off-topic comments will impact my pocketbook.”
please substitute ‘could’ for ‘will’
16 ThinkOutsideABox // Dec 9, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Mmmm, ‘frosty faux thank yous’. A great holiday dessert with cognac.
17 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 4:11 pm
haha, as you can see, I like to serve them up with essence of self-righteousness and a sprinkle of persecution complex flakes. 🙂
18 IanS // Dec 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm
@Chris Keam #64:
“You can ‘disagree’ with me all you want.”
Good. At last, we agree.
“But you don’t get to tell me how I should feel…”
On this, we also agree. I don’t think I’ve told you how you should feel and, if I have, I withdraw it. You can feel however you like.
“…about your sarcastic, unfounded assumptions…”
I disagree that the inferences drawn from your posts are unfounded, but I do agree they were sarcastic. For which I apologized in my post #30.
“… or whether I’m ‘paranoid’ in thinking your unnecessary and off-topic comments will impact my pocketbook.”
You are entitled to feel however you want. Just as I am entitled to find some of those feelings to be paranoid.
“Anyone ‘objectively’ reading my posts would see that I support safer cycling facilities and sensible use of all transportation options. ”
And, depending on what one things is a “sensible use of all transportation options”, none of that is inconsistent with being against cars.
“As I have said repeatedly, an idea should be judged on its merits alone, and the person making the suggestion is irrelevant. If you feel differently, then you shouldn’t post under an alias.”
I answered that point as clearly as I can in my post #41 and 45.
19 IanS // Dec 9, 2011 at 4:20 pm
@Chris Keam #67,
In fairness, I believe I was the one who served up the “frosty faux thank you”. My recipe called for a shot of grumpiness.
20 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 4:43 pm
“And, depending on what one things is a “sensible use of all transportation options”, none of that is inconsistent with being against cars.”
Ian, this is like some negative option billing nightmare where if you’re not explicitly stating you are ‘for’ something, you’re implicitly against it. Do you want me to view all your posts through such a badly cracked lens? To my recollection you’ve never come down one one side or the other of any fence, so I might as well assume you’re anti-everything, or pro-everything or what?
The other option is I could not judge your comments out of context, and treat you as a person with a diverse and adult view of a nuanced world. I know that’s how I’d like to be treated, rather than stereotyped, especially since your assumptions have no basis in fact. If one can’t be pro-cycling without being anti-car, then the opposite must also be true. Do you really think everyone who drives has a hate-on for cyclists?
21 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 4:47 pm
In fairness, I believe I was the one who served up the “frosty faux thank you”.
Yeah, but I named it. Sheesh, now you’re stealing credit for my bon mots. Have you no shame sir, no sense of decency at all?
🙂
22 Chris Keam // Dec 9, 2011 at 4:52 pm
“You are entitled to feel however you want. Just as I am entitled to find some of those feelings to be paranoid.”
Well, at least we’ve established the fact that you must be a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist or summat and a damn good one too, what with the online diagnosis and all.
You’re not seriously going to tell me a person’s reputation can’t be harmed by erroneous things people say about them on the Internet?
23 IanS // Dec 10, 2011 at 7:02 am
@ Chris Keam,
*sigh* And on we go.
#70,
“Ian, this is like some negative option billing nightmare where if you’re not explicitly stating you are ‘for’ something, you’re implicitly against it.”
Again, I don’t know what to tell on this. From your many posts on the subject, I infer that you are anti-car. Perhaps you feel I’ve misread your posts and that may be so. But that’s how I read them. And I don’t think my reading is inaccurate.
To be frank, I’m surprised you’re taking umbrage at the observation.
“I know that’s how I’d like to be treated, rather than stereotyped, especially since your assumptions have no basis in fact.”
How can my reading your posts and drawing conclusions about your positions based on those posts be stereotyping?
“If one can’t be pro-cycling without being anti-car, then the opposite must also be true. Do you really think everyone who drives has a hate-on for cyclists?”
If I thought either thing, then that would be stereotyping. Happily for me, I don’t. I have no doubt that one can be pro-bikes without being anti-car and vice versa.
“To my recollection you’ve never come down one one side or the other of any fence, so I might as well assume you’re anti-everything, or pro-everything or what? ”
Heh. I disagree with your description of my posts here, but if that’s what you think, that’s what you think.
#71,
Yes, you turned the phrase. And nicely too. I’ll concede that. But it was still my “frosty” thank you that inspired it. I think I should get some credit. 😉
#72,
“Well, at least we’ve established the fact that you must be a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist or summat and a damn good one too, what with the online diagnosis and all.”
So I have to be a clinical psychologist to say that I found your statement to be paranoid? Really?
“You’re not seriously going to tell me a person’s reputation can’t be harmed by erroneous things people say about them on the Internet?”
No, I’m not. And I didn’t, just as I’m not going to tell you that the sun rises in the west.
What I actually did try to tell you was that my observation as to your position regarding cars is not going to harm your reputation, at least no more than your many posts on the subject.
24 Chris Keam // Dec 10, 2011 at 7:49 am
“What I actually did try to tell you was that my observation as to your position regarding cars is not going to harm your reputation, at least no more than your many posts on the subject.”
You’re awfully certain of this for a guy with no skin in the game. Dismissing my concerns as baseless just shows disrespect at a level I can’t abide. We’re done here.
25 Chris Keam // Dec 10, 2011 at 7:59 am
I hope the roads aren’t too icy today, as I have to DRIVE somewhere.
26 IanS // Dec 10, 2011 at 8:23 am
@Chris Keam:
“We’re done here.”
At last.
(And apologies to everyone else unfortunate enough to have taken the time to read this embarrassing exchange.)
27 Michael Geller // Dec 10, 2011 at 9:41 am
If you don’t mind, I’ll ignore the last exchange but address Bill McCreery’s comments.
“George Puil had nothing to do with any aspect of the redevelopment of South False Creek lands. He was an opposition member of the Park Board at the time. I could go on…”
Firstly, my suggestion of filling in the park with housing was in part a joke. But not entirely, as you’ll see below.
But it is not correct to say George Puil, (who I might add, is not much more jolly since he’s become a real estate consultant!) did not play an important role in the planning of the south side of the creek.
As a member of the Park Board, (perhaps the chair) George Puil was opposed to ANY housing on the south shore of false creek. Indeed I still have the newspaper clippings describing his opposition to the possibility of families with children having to live there.
He wasn’t alone. A senior city planner resigned his position since he was so opposed to families having to live on these former industrial lands. How times have changed.
Others argued the whole of the creek should be predominently housing with a ‘normal’ park provision.
In the end, the three schemes that were created in response to the competition organized by the city had an approx 50/50 split between park and housing… significantly more park than would be required if one applied today’s standard of 2.75 acres of park space/1000 people.
But while we are on the subject, over the next 10 -20 years the city is going to have to make some tough decisions about the future of the very low density aging wood frame coops, non-profits, and yes condos along the south shore of False Creek. I know many of these buildings have been renovated to address water penetration, but the fact is around 2035 the 60 year leases come due.
The city has the obligation to either renew the leases at the then market value of land, or buy out the improvements at their then market value.
For the wood frame projects, the owners will get very little for the improvements. As a result, it will be incumbent on the city to make key decisions before the 60 years are up. Otherwise, if everyone things they’re leaving, the community will fall into disrepair, and units will be hard to sell.
From a planning point of view, and urban land economics point of view, many would argue that these sites should be redeveloped at much higher densities. However, I have some difficulty imagining any City Council, especially one that might include residents of the Creek, ‘forcing’ these people out.
That’s why I’ll make a prediction that as part of a long term strategy, the city will agree to renew leases on the low density housing, on the understanding that the residents will agree that some of the park can be developed as housing…sort of a density transfer!
ps To you Mira, let me say I agree it is important to hold the new Council accountable, especially when it comes to how it spends public monies and uses public lands as part of its efforts to address affordability. I intend to do this, as I am sure many others will.
My point, however, is to remember that the election is over, and to address issues and decisions from a planning and urban land economics perspective, not a political perspective.
That’s what I tried to do over the past 3 years, (especially when it came to the Olympic Village) but I know many discredited or disregarded my concerns because they thought I was just trying to position myself for the next election. (Bob Rennie, Jim Green, and even senior city officials said as much to me.)
So in future, I hope people will judge my commentary as that of an experienced old man, who’s been at this business for four decades, in the public, private and institutional sectors, rather than just the bitter musings of a failed NPA candidate hoping to run again!
As I hope I demonstrated this year, I don’t have any desire to be on City Council. But I do want to help put good housing policies and action plans put in place to address the very broad housing affordability problems facing Vancouver. And as this post correctly notes, the issues are not just about street homelessness….they are about much, much more.
28 Michael Geller // Dec 10, 2011 at 9:44 am
correction…that should say George Puil is NOW much more jolly, not NOT…
29 Chris Keam // Dec 10, 2011 at 11:06 am
Michael:
A couple questions:
Will the loss of the baby boom bulge relieve much pressure on co-op housing?
How much does the reluctance to have highly visible Hoover-villes spring up on their watch play into a seeming reluctance on the part of various levels of gov’t to take significant steps in creating temporary enclaves of social housing to address homelessness in the short term?
30 Roger Kemble // Dec 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Of course I am just a small town architect so what do I know?
Yet I dare to question the august wisdom of the of Michaels and Franks who, sitting in their offices, have been unable to stem the exponentiating rise in the cost of shelter: a phenomena across the western world, but acute so on the west coast.
All means of legerdemain has been applied to no avail. Coops on FCS and Alder Bay where a great success in their time. But for reasons I cannot fathom the programs have been nixed.
Cost of shelter in Vancouver is due to a lack of developable land we are told. But one need only look at an aerial of the city to see there is no shortage.
Off shore speculation and currency hedging does, maybe did, exacerbate shelter cost. Restricting that is not popular in the real estate community since RE is really the only game in town.
My last residential project, two years ago, a sixty-five-unit downtown Nanaimo condo, was an eye opener for me. At our open houses various mortgage brokers set up tables offering the most bizarre arrangements: (now defunct) no down payment etc.
All the units have been occupied from the get-go: some by owners, some by tenants of owners and some by tenants, I do not know the break down.
However the cause of unaffordability, indeed the cause that dare not name its name, is banking: fractional reserve banking . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUjBLLzYPGg&feature=youtu.be
Add to that off-shoring, loss of meaningful jobs, affordability will continue to be even more remote.
I do not expect a response for either Michael or Frank: it is, when all said and done, rain on their parade. It puts a monkey wrench in their authoritative gossiping.
They are no more able to do anything about banking techniques than you and I.
PS George, “he’s become a real estate consultant!“. That figures . . . he was never a friend of the city.
31 A Dave // Dec 11, 2011 at 3:18 pm
It would seem to me that there’s a fair bit of consensus among commentators regarding one solution to affordable housing and density increases in neighbourhoods. The late Art Cowie put the issue back on the radar with his row-houses on Cambie, and Villegas, Geller, MB, Roger, etc. and even Fontaine at CityCaucus have picked up the ball, pointing to subdivision of single family lots (esp. into fee-simple row-houses) as a viable alternative.
The benefits of re-introducing row-housing to the Vancouver market are clear:
1. an excellent means to increase neighbourhood density (without a NIMBY backlash)
2. create a more affordable product suitable for families and middle class earners (ie. somewhere between increasingly tiny condos and monster houses) – a “new” product not currently available in Vancouver
3. increase building stock across the city significantly without need for land assembly or huge up-front borrowing costs
4. does not require funding from senior levels of government or the use of city-owned land
5. allows small and mid-size developers more opportunity in a marketplace currently dominated by a handful of larger, tower-developing firms
But, as has been discussed here in the past, row-housing is illegal in Vancouver, and requires a Charter amendment by the Provincial Government to change that. Our planning director claims to have been working on this amendment for almost 3 years now, but one wonders how hard he’s trying given the lack of progress?
As the city’s Housing Strategy states, there is a need to “refine and develop new zoning approaches” and “use… regulatory tools to encourage a variety of housing types and tenures.” Nowhere are row-houses mentioned, however, and the City generally seems to be far behind the Bulablog regulars in pushing for this much-needed alternative.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile for the Bulabloggers to pool their collective resources and political capital to figure out a way to pressure both our City Councillors and our local MLAs to get onboard with this Charter amendment ASAP.
I will never own a single family home in Vancouver, but the prospect of owning a small garden plot and a 2-3 storey row-house does seem like a more modest and affordable alternative my small family would be only too happy to inhabit.
32 boohoo // Dec 11, 2011 at 8:02 pm
You’re actually using the row housing on Cambie as an example of affordability? Really??
33 Roger Kemble // Dec 12, 2011 at 4:11 am
A Dave @ # 81 (esp. fee-simple row-houses).
boohoo @ # 82 has a point.
I am intrigued by opinions experienced here: we all know the answers, we spend hours devising our solutions yet the great juggernaut of orthodoxy rolls on.
I haven’t experienced fee-simple row housing. I understand the advantage is no hassle with the strata council. But what happens when the noisy party wall mounted flat screen keeps junior awake? (Pistols at dawn, I suppose!) I see no construction cost savings since all services have to be replicated.
One orthodoxy I hope never sees the light of day: Evergreen. It’s more than the cost (which pisses me ‘cos I still pay) but the disruption of neighbourhoods and cross overs. Anyway our obsession with shiny trinkets is soooooo twentieth century.
For what it’s worth, may I express my opinion: i.e. autonomous, interconnected, urban villages, “Quartiers” as Lewis likes to call them: more than, say, UK’s T&C villages, 5,000 pop. with High Street.
Vancouver is already more than half way there: villages such as Kerrisdale, Marpole, Champlain etc.
May I extend the conversation?
1. Building typology: put the tower debate to rest {some hope!}. There is a place for towers . . .
a. The Atrium . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/Atrium.jpg
. . . a mix of tower, heritage (if in-situ) town houses, privacy, garden and street presence. In addition there is energy transfer (click on my name above), higher density-to-footprint and, behold, some of us enjoy a view.
b. Row houses and fee simple if that is the choice.
c. Grand father the SFD, where existing, and densify at first opportunity.
2. TX typology: I read somewhere, (on Stephen Rees’ blog, I thinq, that traffic, generally, accommodates itself to temporary obstacles: road work etc). Okay then lets pick up on that . . .
a. Design to permanent obstacles and impediments: narrower streets. Stop rationalizing ever-expanding loads. Plan for lesser loads as movement finds the route of least resistance.
b. Right-of-way: 12’x12’x12’x12’ = sidewalk side (ped, safety crossing traffic), dedicated bus lane, traffic/goods lane, traffic/goods lane, cycle lane. Full width 48’ dedicating left over to sidewalks.
c. Unban villages interconnected by a network of emissions free pedestrian scaled trams.
d. Design villages to be as self contained (incrementalized) as much as possible: amenities, jobs, health, recreation, education, high street and spiritual.
e. Theoretically speaking The best TX is no TX. By that I mean design self containment to reduce spurious movement as much as possible: hopefully no more intentionally designed industrial parks: ergo live in Coquitlam, work in Surrey.
f. If green is to be taken seriously then reducing movement is priority numero uno.
3. Administrative. The toughest nut to crack: power does not give up power. However, incremenalization makes administration more accessible.
4. Essentially we are talking money and money always devolves to banking. I have brought this up ad nauseam to no avail. Make all the proposals we like STIR etc. but they will always hit the impenetrable wall of compound interest.
In a pseudo capitalist economy the market is supposed to balance out: in real time it does not.
The content and usage of money is out of our reach: the consequences are NOT.
34 Lari // Dec 12, 2011 at 6:58 am
@A Dave, all ofyour sentiments are supportable,but you are so wrong on the affordability of the Cowie Wowies on Cambie: those ring in at $2 Million. No working family I know can afford that.
35 IanS // Dec 12, 2011 at 7:41 am
Is there any reason to believe that row housing will produce enough additional housing to bring prices down?
36 Roger Kemble // Dec 12, 2011 at 8:05 am
Ians @ #85
It wont. If we don’t wake up to the banking ponzi we’ll be sleeping rough under the viaducts that the city couldn’t afford to tear down because Concord goes bust. This is not funny.
b. Should read . . . Right-of-way: 12’x12’x12’x12’ = sidewalk side (ped, safety crossing traffic), dedicated tram lane, traffic/goods lane, traffic/goods lane, cycle lane.
Parking should be relegated peripheral as at Disneyland. Disneyland is very well planned: shaming our planners!
37 MB // Dec 12, 2011 at 10:37 am
@ Roger 80: “Cost of shelter in Vancouver is due to a lack of developable land we are told. But one need only look at an aerial of the city to see there is no shortage.”
Very true. But all that open space you refer to (most of it known as backyards) is locked up by private owners who vote to keep out the riff raff (otherwis known as middle class families starting out).
The other half of the open space is locked up in the road system.
Hence “shortage.”
The banking issue you espouse is yet another complication.
38 Roger Kemble // Dec 12, 2011 at 11:10 am
MB @ #87
Check out the rail yards and remember FCN and NEFC were CPR yards before Expo87.
39 MB // Dec 12, 2011 at 11:12 am
Re: freehold row housing.
Thanks A Dave and Roger for articulating this valid alternative.
The Cowie row houses are not affordable for several reasons (large lot, luxury fittings, etc), but they do indicate what is possible regarding subdividing the single family lot. They are not a singular example and should not be used as a model for affordable, unsubsidized housing.
Subdivide five or so Vancouver Special lots in East Van into eight or nine attached row houses, and you’ll pay about a third less per unit than an individual Special because you’re using less land.
There are some efficiencies in sharing load-bearing party walls, one of them being your heating costs will be less than if they were outside walls
London and almost every other city in the UK has thousands of row houses built from masonry, and a hhuge nuimber are freehold. The latter fact attains to their independent structural integrity. The party walls are solid brick and mitigate sound transmission quite well. Moreover, the older ones were often built at separate gtimes from each other and therein each house has independent solid masory load bearing side walls and foundations spaced perhaps an inch from the neighbour’ walls, therein providing two solid walls between units.
Any competent architect or structural engineer can provide standards for superior sound attenuation in modern row house party walls as well as superior design for fire and seismic codes.
A row house can be as simple and affordable as a basic two-up and two-down layout, no basement, no articulations like bay windows that add cost, and shared outdoor parking with other units. I would suggest the insulation and energy ratings from super-insulated houses become a minimum standard. This will add to the purchase price, but will also have a calulatable payback period with far lower operating costs that will provide substantial back-end savings.
A row house can also be as complex and unaffordable as the luxury five-storey jobs of Belgravia designed to the nines with luxurious finishes and appliances, and a private park out back to boot.
The fact is row housing is a tried and true model of both affordability and luxury, depending on your income level, and of very efficient use of expensive urban land. Most of us cannot afford detached houses on standard lots in Vancouver, and are sick and broke from our negative experiences with condos. Row housing is the happy median.
40 IanS // Dec 12, 2011 at 11:38 am
@MB #89,
I don’t necessarily disagree with much of what you write here, but wouldn’t most, if not all, of those benefits be achieved more efficiently with condos?
I don’t agree with this: “. Most of us… are sick and broke from our negative experiences with condos. ”
My experience with condos has been pretty good and most of the people I know who live in condos enjoy doing so. Obviously, that’s anecdotal, but I don’t think condo living is a dismal a proposition as you seem to indicate.
I can’t afford a detached house anywhere I would want to live, but, even if I could, I think I would stick with a condo.
41 MB // Dec 12, 2011 at 12:48 pm
@ Ians S, granted, many people are happy with condo living. My last 10 years in a condo was a mixed experience, but was better than all the other multi-family experiences I’ve had since 1979.
The leaky condo issue has not disappeared, despite its relatively recent quietude. I know many peole who have had to pay anywhere up to 100K for repairs to other people’s units when their own was not leaking.
I’ve also heard some horror stories of strata boards gone wildly off centre with pettiness. These boards, unlike co-op boards, wield real financial power.
And there are those personalities who are very private and want nothing to do with the dynamics of group management.
I thank our lucky angel every winter for the 2-foot soffits we have on our detached house perched on a more affordable half lot. But I know I can’t complain about not being able to share the burden when I have to replace the roof.
I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Row housing, especially of there is solid structural separation, will not require anything more than perhaps a simple contract with the neighbours … but even that’s not necessary if there’s no shared property.
42 IanS // Dec 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm
@MB #91,
Granted, condos are not for everyone. However, to the extent we are looking at trying to build additional capacity to create more affordable housing (assuming that’s possible), I think that condos make more sense.
Yes, there’s been a fair bit of trouble over the whole “leaky condo” problem. I’ve been involved in a number of cases as legal counsel and I have a pretty good idea of the difficulties it has caused. Still, there’s no shortage of legal disputes between owners of detached housing, and I would expect there to be plenty in a row housing situation too.
43 Bill McCreery // Dec 12, 2011 at 2:29 pm
@ Michael 77.
It is a bit of a stretch to suggest that George Puil played a role in the ‘planning’ of the end product of False Creek. He did not.
In trying to be brief I did not mention that Puil, as chair of the Park Board in 70-72 and when in opposition in 72-74, favoured developing the entire South False Creek as parkland as well as the North False Creek lands as a Seattle style freeway through Downtown Vancouver. That approach was off the table as a result of the election of the TEAM Council, Park and School Boards in 72.
TEAM Alderman Hardwick was Chair of a False Creek planning committee of the then NPA Council in 71. At that time he and Peter Oberlander, via the Planning Commission, had begun looking at mixed use residential, commercial, community services and park options for these key properties.
Certainly, there were people at the time who supported the previous Council’s position just as there are those now who continue to support this Council’s spot rezoning process and those who don’t. I’m not sure who the “senior planner” is you refer to, but the only one I recall leaving was Bill Graham, and he didn’t resign.
You are correct that the Thompson Berwick and Pratt Phase 1 plan had an approximate 50/50 acreage split of park/seawall vs housing. However, we anticipated there would be, and there are higher densities at both ends of the False Creek South Phase 1 development. In addition, as I pointed out the Fairview Slopes, which we up-zoned, was very park deficient. Note also, the original TB & P FCS concept plan had a very wide land bridge connecting the Slopes to Charleson Park.
Again, in the interests of brevity in my earlier comment I did not mention that the original TB & P Phase 1 plan, once it had be fleshed out by the False Creek Committee’s development staff and TB & P, had reduced the size of the originally proposed Charleson Park. As I said the park had become too small so we made it larger, but that final increase was somewhat smaller than that originally proposed.
Dealing with the FCS leases will be as challenging as trying to provide affordable housing. It is time that the City develops a strategy as to how this will be handled because reselling prices of these units are already being adversely affected. It’ll be interesting to see if Council has the courage to tackle this thorny issue.
It depends on one’s values regarding park vs. higher density housing, etc. I would argue that the park space should not be reduced, with the possible exception of the treed berm along Charleson Road where higher densities could be achieved, and by even building over the road and the eventual streetcar r.o.w.
There may also be opportunities with some of the social housing to gently densify. In addition, there are some weaknesses in the original planning, such as the doughnuts, which may offer possibilities for adding density if that is a priority in 2035.
Currently the mentality seems to be that density, no matter how it’s done, but preferably as much as can be stuffed onto a given property, is a good thing. Like most fads, I hope this will too pass. We need to come to realize that at a certain point liveability is compromised by too much density.
It has been said that a green building is one that’s already there. The measure of density and liveability should be: is there enough density to allow residents to walk and ride their bikes to their local shops and services? We don’t need to be panicked into thinking Vancouver must become Hong Kong or Manhattan to accomplish this.
And, while we’re at it, would be helpful if someone were to do a really independent assessment of what supply, including adding density, and demand will have on our housing ‘affordability’.
And, Michael, while I differ with your take here and occasionally on other matters, I, and I suspect many others, respect and value your comments here and elsewhere. I do not think of them as being particularly politically partisan. I trust you and others will also see my own observations as coming from someone who’s learned a few things by been involved in planning and development for four decades as an architect and occasionally as a small time developer, and as an elected representative. I enjoy these exchanges and learn a great deal from them.
44 Frank Ducote // Dec 12, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Bill – thanks so much for keeping our relatively recent but too easily forgotten historical record as accurate as possible. Not having lived here during the truly significant TEAM years, I find your comments very informative especially coming from an insider’s perspective.
Chuck Davis aside, Vancouver has never been particularly good at writing its own book. How False Creek came about with all the various land swaps and competing visions is a truly remarkable – and ongoing- story.
45 A Dave // Dec 12, 2011 at 10:18 pm
The point about Cowie Wowies (lol) being unaffordable is well taken, although as MB notes these are high-end, and also had to be built according to the current Charter restrictions, which undoubtedly cost a pretty penny to circumvent.
I think Cowie was, at least in part, making a symbolic point that the illegality of this product in Vancouver is absurd and needs to be remedied. As far as I’m concerned, any alternative to the hegemony enjoyed by condos/towers after 20 years of flooding the market with them would be a good thing.
And of course row-houses are not going to devalue the general real estate market through supply increases, any more than STIR is going to help make rents more affordable. But what they can do is add a more affordable product within a market that currently has two predominant options: increasingly large monster houses, and increasingly small condos. Neither option is appropriate for middle class families. Row houses could help fill this market segment and help to retain/attract more of them.
46 Bill Lee // Dec 19, 2011 at 1:22 am
Interesting long piece in the Saturday Sun on the 16th and Dunbar, 7th and Fir and those housing projects for the homeless poor.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Westside+Neighbourhood+Ministry+form+fillers/5876821/story.html
….”She explained some of the problems experienced by poorly resourced housing outreach workers on the west side. First, there was the challenge of building relationships with longtime homeless people who often have a distrust of authority and bureaucracy.
Then, if they got people on the waiting list, keeping them on was tough, she told them. If applicants don’t check in with BC Housing every six months, they’re knocked off the list.
They can’t leave messages or phone, so when housing finally came up, outreach workers often couldn’t find them. That any homeless people made it into housing at all was no small miracle, she said”
“In the spring of 2011, BC Housing and Coast Mental Health allocated 12 of 51 units in the 17th and Dunbar complex for the west-side homeless. (Five units were allocated to Yaffa Housing Society, five to disabled applicants on the BC Housing waiting list and the remaining to Coast clients.)”
When will they give up trying to rent the street level retail and let the homeless take over the shop windows too?
The whole building could be used, rather than just the upper floors.
47 Bill Lee // Dec 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Further, the “tiniest in all Canada” aparteeenies open up above the booze outlet Bitter, and next to the Portland hotel.
The Province entitled it:
“Living small on West Hastings
Smallest rental units in Canada aim to make living in Vancouver affordable
by Cassidy Olivier, The Province; With Files From Andy Ivens
Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Living+small+West+Hastings/5881000/story.html
Though the “West” is a matter of metres from the East-West dividing line, it is for yuppies.
“Life in an apartment the size of a double parking space will be on full display today as the public gets its first inside look at the mini-living going on at the restored Burns Block building on West Hastings Street in Vancouver.
Boasting 30 micro units described as the smallest rental units in Canada by developer Reliance Properties and partner ITC Construction Group, the Burns building is part of the city’s ongoing affordable housing strategy.
Coun. Kerry Jang told The Province Sunday that the low-rent suites – which range in size from 226 square feet to 291 square feet and rent for an average of $850 a month – were designed with modest income earners in mind.”
[ pre-reno rents were around $375]
Kerry Jang’s ever-present long Burberry coat cost more than what people in the neighbourhood get in a month. How can they raise $850 for a 15 tatami mat room?
“The city contributed a $50,000 grant to fix the face of the 100-year-old heritage building, $144,000 in property-tax reductions and 62,000 square feet in heritage bonus density.
The remodelling, which Jang described as “cool and funky,” was completed earlier this year and all 30 units were filled by early September.”
“But not everyone was upbeat about the new units.
Wendy Pederson, researcher and organizer for the Carnegie Community Action Project, decried the renovation of the old hotel as gentrification, adding people living on welfare or on old age pensions won’t be able to afford the rents even at $850.
“In my view, it’s a crime that the last housing before homelessness is being converted into micro-lofts,” she said.
“Those rooms used to rent at welfare and old age pension rates, and now the Downtown Eastside is being gentrified by the upscaling of these hotels. It’s upscale by our standards,” she said, adding the pre-reno rents were around $375.”
[ more ]
48 Frank Ducote // Dec 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Bill@97
Given this perpetual divide in the Hastings Street area, it would seem that Bitter is aptly named.
49 A Dave // Dec 21, 2011 at 2:01 am
Yes, Frank, when Geller and Co. are planning to meet for beers on the unit block of Hastings, you know the neighbourhood has really gone to sh*t.