26 responses so far ↓

• 1 Frank Ducote // Jun 5, 2012 at 9:31 am

  Thanks to Happy Returnee for a great question and my friend and former colleague Trish French for a wikipedia-worthy response.

  There is a valid kernel of truth in the question that will underlie future planning and development in Vancouver. Namely, to what degree can more intensive ground-oriented housing forms be introduced into the quieter streets of Vancouver?

  I think the inability to do this in many – but not all areas, like kingsway/Knight as noted – on a widespread and reasonable level in Vancouver has in part led to the kinds of very large CD rezonings we are now seeing. Development in Vancouver will go where it is permitted to go (or where there is least resistance), and it is certainly not permitted to go in the very extensive single-family neighbourhoods. As many have noted, such large developments are not usually and specifically designed for families with children.

  To change, the “corridor” in a transit-oriented “nodes and corridors” concept for the entire city will have to thicken beyond the thin frontages of arterial roads. On the face of it, it seems reasonable that there be a transitional denser ground-oriented strip across the lane from busy arterials (where transit and shops are located), and on quieter streets nearer parks and schools. Maybe we wouldn’t be needing to close so many schools if families were specifically designed for in these low-density ‘hoods. Just a thought.

  Stacked townhouses and townhouses and even back-to-back forms are all reasonable in such locations.

  This could tie in quite well with current CoV transportation plan update thinking where there may be a citywide system or grid of traffic-calmed greenways paralleling our main roads, in order to encourage walking, non-commuting biking, etc.

  However and sadly, the city is not engaged in a simultaneous and equally intensive land use planning exercise to accompany the transportation plan update. I know former DoP Brent Toderian had a citywide vision and plan on his to-do list, but I don’t know where this stands in his absence.

  A real missed opportunity.

• 2 Dan Cooper // Jun 5, 2012 at 1:17 pm

  It’s indeed sad that there are not more options within Vancouver to live in apartments/ townhouses/ subdivided houses on quieter streets like the stretches of 13th, 14th and 15th between Oak and Main. I actually was lucky enough to find a relatively small condo apartment building (next to a small group of rental townhouses, what’s more) on an even quieter street made up mostly of single family houses, but it was difficult; the great majority of what I saw available was, indeed, directly on major streets with big noise issues.

• 3 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 5, 2012 at 2:04 pm

  There is a third explanation—we are simply not getting the job done.

  The first consideration has to be the toxicity of living fronting an arterial that carries over 15,000 vpd (vehicles per day). Worse if the unit is single aspect and must get all its air and daylight from the arterial—cough, gasp, chocke.

  Our arterials carry about 10,000 vehicles per lane. So, a 6-lane arterial is pushing to reach the 60,000 vpd summit. Knight just north of the bridge over the Fraser exceeds that average daily volume, yet is fronted by single family houses. This is not an atypical fronting condition in our city, which begs the question about the wisdom of permitting towers outside the downtown core.

  The second consideration is the need to change the design of the arterial itself as residential intensification takes place, and in order to support BRT implementation. However, we are not integrating the various functions at City Hall under one overarching (urban design) umbrella. Much less cross-jurisdictionally with Translink.

  The silos just keep doing their thing.

  Finally, there is the small issue that the Art Cowie vision, mine, or Patrick Condon’s at UBC, is not getting traction. Against the grain of the commentary, there is no need to assemble land to build human-scale, hi-density housing except for the provision in the Vancouver Charter that arbitrarily bans it, and that no one seems interesting in revisiting.

  However, in spite of all three considerations, we are building all our density on the polluted arterials… (I accept the greenfield and brownfield sites as the other location—but, that’s not what the question is asking about in my view).

  Which only leaves one unavoidable conclusion: we are building the wrong kind of density.

  The city we get is not the city we want.

• 4 Frank Ducote // Jun 5, 2012 at 2:39 pm

  Lewis – Maybe one reason your ideas “don’t get traction” is because of the way you deliver them. Aside from that, maybe most people don’t find them entirely practical or something. Just a guess. Further, nobody really likes being beaten over the head constantly by someone pretending to know it all, better than anyone else. If you change your style and try and find mutually desirable outcomes and maybe you’ll find more success in life. I urge you to find a developer to work with who is willing to work with you to pursue HIS or HER program, not necessarily yours. Not so easy.

  On another note – some of the highest priced houses in Vancouver are located on arterials, whether anybody think such streets are “toxic” notwithstanding (South Granville, Cambie, Dunbar, W. 41st, Point Grey Road, etc., etc.) . They carry well above 20,000vpd, more like 35,000 or more in some instances. So are Art Cowie’s beautiful – and very expensive – rowhouses. So I guess these streets can be livable to a lot of people with a suitable design approach, setbacks, landscaping, robust materials and noise mitigation. We as a City are not going to give up on arterials as fitting places to live.

  Getting back to the main point – it’s the next street over the discussion is about, in any event. Let me be among those who support the City moving forward with transitional ground-oriented forms and densities on either side of our suburban arterials in Vancouver. I am still hoping that a group of adjacent owners may wish to step forward together and test some ideas through a community visioning process. I’m guessing they might receive a lot of support where it ultimately matters – among staff and at Council.

• 5 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 5, 2012 at 6:43 pm

  Maybe not, Frank.

• 6 voony // Jun 5, 2012 at 11:11 pm

  May be, if the most expensive house are on Cambie, South Granville…it is because speculation estimates rezoning is much probable here than in other place, not because it is the most livable.

  more generally, land price is driven by yield potential.
  as stated in introduction, a typical built Vancouver lot can host 3 dwelling (the main unit, the basement suite and the laneway house) -> rental yield $4000 to $6000/month…

  in a nowadays environment where bond yield below 2%, 4% yield can be considered good…That put a price of $1.1M (to $1.4M) on the above.

  Building cost being at 450K to 650K, it put the fair market price for the lot land at 550K (to 750K).

  If you want reduce house price in Vancouver, you either reduce the rental yield (by flooding the market with Condo) or reduce the number of dwelling possible on a lot…
  if you don’t want reduce density, that means subdivizing, them:
  a 33 foot frontage can be subdivized in 16.5 foot (attached house), but most obviously 50 foot lot should be prime candidate for that.

  I don’t understand why the city of Vancouver doesn’t encourage that obvious solution.

• 7 A Dave // Jun 6, 2012 at 10:28 am

  As Voony mentions, the Cambie Corridor rezoning is the main reason Cambie’s arterial homes are now so overpriced. Otherwise Frank’s list of “highest priced houses in Vancouver are located on arterials” is exclusively West Side, where lot sizes and the ability to afford bunker-like landscaping to protect the houses and yards mitigates the problem substantially. Still, I do question whether he is right that houses on the West Side directly fronting arterials are priced higher than nearby houses that aren’t?

  Starting on Main and going east, you will definitely see a stark contrast, with arterial homes generally showing less investment and fetching less than houses a few doors or blocks inward. The difference in price and investment in upgrades between, say, Prior (with near freeway-like conditions) and Union (a block north, with a bike route), is quite remarkable. Similarly, residential rents in walk-ups and above storefronts on arterials are often much cheaper than those located within a block of the arterial (including around Cambie).

  For whatever reason, Vancouver is actively promoting residential intensification along arterials. It seems to have become a buzz phrase for the “Greenest City” crowd, despite the fact that it has long been discredited as “sustainable” development when all factors are considered.

  Even the Athens Charter (1933), that great ode to Modernist, car-centric planning, states unequivocally: “16. Structures built along transportation routes and around their intersections are detrimental to habitation because of noise, dust, and noxious gases.”

  England’s Restriction of Ribbon Development Act in the inter-war period also prevented building along motorways and transportation corridors due to the negative effects on health and the economies of towns along the routes.

  Which begs the question: Is Vancouver’s push towards residential intensification along arterials at odds with our aspirations to be the “Greenest City”? Will the Cambie Corridor, assuming is gets developed as Mr. Toderian planned, become a linear ghetto in 30-40 years?

• 8 Bill Lee // Jun 6, 2012 at 10:43 am

  @A Dave // Jun 6, 2012 at 10:28 am #7
  “The difference in price and investment in upgrades between, say, Prior (with near freeway-like conditions) and Union (a block north, with a bike route), is quite remarkable. ”

  Well, part of it is parking. You can’t on Prior Throughway.
  And Union Street is becoming “white” and has a linear park acting as a through traffic barrier therefore the million dollar homes.
  The bike route is a accident of letting the Canadian National (“Goddamn the CPR!”) tracks divide the city there and allow only two road crossings on the south side of the Hastings Viaduct, one on Prior/Venables, one on Union.

  Meanwhile we have Richard Campbell approving a new massive bicycle bridge over the Powell Street crossing.

• 9 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 6, 2012 at 1:32 pm

  @Bill & Dave

  … tracks divide the city there and allow only two road crossings on the south side of the Hastings Viaduct, one on Prior/Venables, one on Union.

  Bill, this is the Raymur Spur, n’est-ce pas?

  I’ve always hoped the Raymur Spur will become part of a False Creek Streetcar that runs along Powell Street (triggering Japantown Revitalization), then cuts along the BC Electric ROW through Gastown, crosses Hastings at the old BC Electric Building on the SW corner of Carrall, and connects into Expo Boulevard where we are told there is over-capacity in the road space.

  The Powell Street track, and the connection between the BC Electric ROW and Expo Blvd. are the only missing bits in this part of the route.

  Going in the other direction, the Spur heads west and crosses Main Street on the south side of 1st Avenue, runs along the OV towards Granville Island, connects up to 6th Avenue—the only missing bit on this part of the route—and feeds into the Arbutus ROW. Then it runs clear on existing R.O.W. all the way to Chilliwack!

  99.99% of this route is in place. Most of it is owned by either local governments, or Translink.

  So… the tracks that “divide the city” may in fact be the key for piecing together a new city and region! Housing affordability follows hard on the heels built as TOD along the tracks.

  Problem outside the downtown is that rather than “urban-thinking”—linking transit, building form, and neighbourhood footprint—we’re building third-world-rate tower neighbourhoods… Bring on the tin zamba drums.

  “16. Structures built along transportation routes and around their intersections are detrimental to habitation because of noise, dust, and noxious gases.” The Athens Charter

  Obviously, these folks never been to New Orlean’s streetcar suburb, the Garden City. Its palatial homes were built first on either side of a leafy green boulevard, often used by joggers today, that runs a double streetcar line. Transportation choices also loom large in creating the livability of place.

  If we set a transportation target between 8,000 and 15,000 vpd on arterials, and we take up 2 traffic lanes to implement BRT, then we can provide up to 110,000 trips per day (99 B Line levels+10,000 cars) without the sardine-can experience of today’s Broadway.

  Transit on arterials would be anything but Athens Charter-like:

  (1) Quiet (rubber tires)
  (2) Toxic Free (hydro-electric)
  (3) Dust Free…

  Well, as long as we’re riding on rubber tires, the big savings in soot will come from switching from combustion to electric engines.

  However, as these lines reach capacity BRT can convert to LRT and then (maybe) run without rubber tires.

  In either case, tree medians planted to separate BRT lanes from traffic will trap a great deal of the particulates during the summer months in the tree canopies. Leaves and trapped particulates will fall to the ground in autumn and be collected by city crews to be trucked away. In the winter, wet road conditions will wash the dust from rubber tires into the storm drains.

  The challenge is to break the silo culture at the various bureaucracies, and get these well-meaning folks to work together. For example, we need to find the right product for incremental residential intensification without land assembly.

  My investigations point in the direction of the subdivision of the single family residential lot into a 3.5 storey fee-simple house with seemingly endless flexibility for internal organization.

  The city was platted in the English system. Therefore, it makes sense to me to mine that system for the high-density, human-scale alternative to the condo towers—even if this irks some transplanted Brits living among us.

  The city we get is not the city we want.

• 10 jesse // Jun 7, 2012 at 9:53 am

  Townhomes ARE being built on quiet streets. They are called detached houses with suites. Or are they “condos”?

• 11 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 7, 2012 at 3:07 pm

  Density and Built Form analysis returns the following guidelines for the sake of comparison of various building products used in our industry:

  6 units/acre = single family house on 33×122.5-foot lot
  12 units/acre = duplex or semi-detached
  18 units/acre = 3 suites on one lot
  70 units/acre = 3.5 storey row houses

  70 units/acre = 4 storey walk-up apartments
  100+ units/acre = 20 storey-plus apartment towers

  I have seen North Shore False Creek reported as 66 units/acre, but I can’t vouch for the figure since I have not verified it for myself. However, the figure accurately portrays that luxury condos will be built with lots of space around them, and thus under-perform in density even ground oriented building types.

  The implications for intensification at the neighbourhood scale are startling. We can achieve the equivalent to tower and walk-up apartment densities with human-scale, fee-simple product (row houses).

  Thus, many have argued, the fact that the row houses present eyes on the street—a door on the street and lane—and can be owned individually, should make us stop and consider them as the most desirable product for the incremental intensification of our neighbourhoods outside the downtown.

  For one, there is no monthly strata fee, or dread annual and semi-annual ‘special assessment’. Many homeowners will be able to do most upkeep chores themselves.

  A street of row houses can be seen to exceed in social functioning and sense of place, a comparative street built of either walk up apartments or towers.

  The city we get is not the city we want.

• 12 A Dave // Jun 7, 2012 at 11:22 pm

  “Meanwhile we have Richard Campbell approving a new massive bicycle bridge over the Powell Street crossing.”

  Yeah, Bill, the city engineers are hard at work planning for the removal of two traffic lanes on this $25 million dollar project so that they can accommodate Richard’s grand vision. Guffaw.

• 13 Michael Geller // Jun 8, 2012 at 9:18 am

  Well, at the risk of joining Frank Ducote in some Lewis bashing, I must question Lewis’ submission that 3.5 storey row houses can be developed at 70 units per acre.

  The irony is that the first time I ever met Lewis we had a similar discussion when I questioned some of his density and FSR numbers.

  So for what it’s worth, from my past design and development experience, ground oriented rowhouses with at grade parking are usually developed around 14 to 22 units per acre. With underground parking the density can be higher but rarely above 30 units per acre.

  It is possible to achieve higher densities with ‘back to back’ row housing and ‘stacked rowhousing’. Indeed, as discussed at yesterday’s SFU noon time conversation on building forms for Vancouver, back to back stacked rowhouses can be developed at very high densities…and yes, in the order of 70 units per acre. Perhaps this is what Lewis meant.

  However, as discussed yesterday, the consensus in the room is that there is a place for towers, as well as higher density ground oriented forms of housing. There also seemed to be agreement that a ‘transitional zone’ to facilitate rowhousing and stacked rowhousing might be appropriate between arterials and single family streets, as Frank noted above.

  This is highlighted in my report to the Mayor’s Task Force on Affordable Housing. If you are interested in reading more, you can find my latest blog posting and link to the report here
  http://tinyurl.com/6vrf5yp

• 14 Frank Ducote // Jun 8, 2012 at 1:08 pm

  Thanks, Michael. I don’t intend to bash anyone. I assure you it isn’t persnal, but unsubstantiated pronouncements supposedly offered as facts tend to raise my hackles.

  Like you, I will try and be nicer in future.

  Btw, I think your 14-22 upa for townhouses may be a gross density figure, i.e., prior to roads and other deductions. I estimate that Redbricks by Mosaic nets out over 40 units per NET acre. Andy Coupland can likely verify if he’s following all this. Parking is at grade with 2 tandem stalls per unit accessed from the lane. A very dense yet livable form.

• 15 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 9, 2012 at 3:51 pm

  The fee simple row house is now a fait accompli in our city, according to our blog hostess (see my post #69 under “New Vision for the Viaducts”).

  In the VHQ project we show an axonometric of the house on a lot 25-foot wide and provide the development statistics for that design.

  http://wp.me/p1mj4z-oJ

  While 25-foot wide lots are the standard in the historic quartiers; the typical South Vancouver and CPR lot is 33×122.5 feet; and the typical house lot in the former Municipality of Point Grey is 50 feet wide. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, builders can combine more than one lot and come up with widths that are not entirely dependent on the platting. Two 33-foot lots can yield three 20-ft.+ houses, etc.

  Gross density analysis is a measure of the total building area related to the surrounding public open space. Thus, whether they are back-to-back, stacked, single, or multi-unit, doesn’t change the gross density number.

  I did a gross density calculation for the building in Kerrisdale at the SE corner of 41st & Larch—which I believe is one of Michael’s projects.

  Gross density: 104 units per acre (measured on Google, so the accuracy is soft).

  Assumptions:

  1. Unit size 800-s.f.

  2. 15% of the floor area is discounted for corridors and exits.

  3. 50% of the fronting R.O.W. is included in the land calculation (making it “gross” density versus “net” density calculations such as FSR).
  

  Remedial lessons in multiplication and basic geometry anyone? English, Spanish, or very bad French.

• 16 voony // Jun 10, 2012 at 10:05 pm

  Some comments on the Michael Geller’s report

  Report goes in the right direction, but seems to infuse the believe that housing is expensive in Vancouver, because development/construction cost are high.

  I don’t believe that is true:

  If Bjarke Ingels, build a tower in Vancouver where its condos will sell for $1M, It will be not because construction cost will be high …but because there is a market for $1M condos, you will see the Bjarke Ingels building (which no doubt will be expensive to build).

  Same goes with the Laneway housing, because people are willing to rent $1600-$2300 such housing form, it well justify the $250,000 construction cost – in fact at today rate, a $2000 rent covers a $400K mortgage…so the economic model of the LWH is still very good, and because of that, land cost has significantly increased in Vancouver (as a result of the LWH policy). That bring us on the positive of the report:

  Land subdivision
  50ft lot need to be divided in 2×25 ft: that is a starter.
  In some case, Vancouver has pretty l0ng lot -eg 33×160+ lots fronting both Taunton and McHardy in Collingwood neighborood.
  In This area which could be called a “transition zone”, such lot should be divided in two 33×80 lots. (and why not 16.5×80 row house lot)

  PS: I have posted this comment on the Michael Geller’s blog, but for some reason it didn’t appear there

  PS2: Unit size of 800sqf is considered too small to raise a family- the typical market for rowhouse- nowadays you need to go at least with 1200sqf, ideally 1500sqf+, including a mortgage helper of 650 sqf+

• 17 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 11, 2012 at 11:25 pm

  PS2: Unit size of 800sqf is considered too small to raise a family- the typical market for rowhouse- nowadays you need to go at least with 1200sqf, ideally 1500sqf+, including a mortgage helper of 650 sqf+

  voony['s owner]

  I have not read the report yet, but I will and I hope that Frances will put down the plunger and snake long enough to report on it and the “legalization” of the row house in British Columbia.

  The 800 s.f. unit size is merely a “convention” in urban design. We want to be able to measure the density of one building type, or one district, or one neighbourhood, against another. Be they in Paris or Vancouver.

  To do that, you have to define “standards”. The 800 s.f. unit is a “standard”. A family should probably occupy two “standards” and live in 1600 s.f. However, in a pinch, a family may have to make a go if it in 400 s.f., or half a standard.

  While there are some problems with this rationale, there are advantages that accrue as well.

  For example, we can count a four-storey 4000 s.f. row house on a 16.5 x 112.5-foot lot (2.15 FSR) as 5 units. In fact, it can be divided up in a multiplicity of ways:

  1. One 4,ooo s.f. house
  2. Two 2,000 s.f. stacked town houses
  3. One 2,000 s.f. house and two 1,000 s.f. suites.
  4. Four 1,000 s.f. suites
  5. Eight 400 s.f. SRO replacement units

  The permutations are endless, since a suite does not have to occupy the entire floor plate.

  I’ll be interested to see how the report handles the gross density issue.

• 18 Michael Geller // Jun 12, 2012 at 7:55 am

  Frank, you are right…If you take a project like Redbricks that places narrow units on shallower lots and exclude any road or lane in the calculations, it is definitely higher than 14 to 22 upa.

  Voony, I have posted your comments on my blog. Not sure why they couldn’t be posted.

  Lewis, you’re right…there are many different ways to calculate density…net, gross, upa ppa…etc.

  What is interesting for many people is that the FSR of Kerrisdale highrises is only 1.7 FSR, which is why I do worry about some of the new apartments being proposed and approved above 5 FSR today.

• 19 Michael Geller // Jun 12, 2012 at 7:58 am

  Now back to the subject at hand. I’ll always recall a Council meeting when Councillor Gordon Price asked me why I was proposing apartments at 41st and Balaclava….why don’t you come forward with apartments or rowhouses on a quieter street?

  My response. “Would you support this project if it was on West 42nd?”

  Suffice it to say, he supported the West 41st application!

• 20 Elizabeth Murphy // Jun 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm

  If the city is to reduce its ecological footprint, we must improve air quality throughout the city by replacing diesel buses with electric trolley buses and improve the service throughout the grid. This could be done for a fraction of the cost of one rapid rail transit corridor and could be implemented immediately with a small fee such as a vehicle registration fee based on GHG emissions. This makes all the arterials much more liveable.

  Any consideration of changes to zoning of existing neighbourhoods needs to first carefully consider what currently exists and what could be built under existing zoning. It is a mistake to treat “single family” zones as if it is only one unit. Over time, any of these lots could be three units, including rental units that are a priority for council. As we saw once the Strata Act was approved in 1966, once strata is allowed it becomes a challenge to get developers to build anything else but strata. Lock-off rental suites in new development tend to be very small and expensive, often only bachelor or one bedroom suites.

  All arterials should not be treated the same. Arterials with commercial below residential is where density makes most sense because it is generally close to transit, amenities and shops. Transitions across the lane makes most sense there. What form that takes should depend on the neighbourhood and decided through community process and CityPlan Visions. In some instances the existing zoning might already be the appropriate zoning. For instance, RM and RT zones and many RS areas already have a lot of existing and potential density.

  However, zoning should be made to discourage demolition of existing older houses with replacement by new monster houses, recently exacerbated by increases to outright FSR. Where ever possible, existing houses should be adaptively reused with multiple secondary suites to minimize impact on the environment and to improve affordability. Each neighbourhood will have a different response depending on needs and existing circumstances. This should not be a one size fits all approach.

• 21 Lewis N. Villegas // Jun 16, 2012 at 12:28 am

  I get it now. “The Plumber” is the side bar where we can have a quieter discussion.

  Michael, if we are crude about it, and assume that all the new buildings around the Mount Pleasant Community Centre at 1 Kingsway are 3.0 FSR (and the Rize as approved over 5 FSR), then I think we can agree that 3 FSR is too much to build outside Downtown.

  However, we are left with Bette’s question: is zoning a strong enough tool to get us the urbanism she describes, and I suspect we really want?

  I am writing P.R.W. in Vancouver (post fee-simple Row Houses being approved). So many of the old assumptions—including 3 storey walk-up strata—have to take note.

  While I agree that “all the arterials should not be treated the same”, I underscore the point that all arterials are the same street type.

  Typology and zoning are not the same thing. The former is as old as the hills in Rome and Athens, the latter dates to the rise of planning and the post-WWII era in North America.

  Therefore, I have argued that the arterials need a “perfect storm” combining the right transit (trolley BRT); the right building type; and a reduction of vehicular traffic from up to 70,000 v.p.d. to something more like 8,000 to 15,000 v.p.d.

  Impossible? No, not if commuters use transit.

  Bette’s “demolition of older houses” coincides with my “preservation of character streets, districts & neighbourhoods”.

  Otherwise, I feel we are on the same page. The need to have responses tailored on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis does not rule out using the same urban design methodology to arrive at different solutions.

  On the one hand, the character of the neighbourhood is set by a subtle balance achieved between the residents of the place, and the particular idiosyncrasies of each site. A bend in the road here, a vista there, the location of parks, shopping streets, and transit, etc.

  On the other, there are but a limited set of urban elements that we can recombine in new ways to respond to the uniqueness of each place, inflect to the local characteristics, and produce signature places of genuine authenticity.

  Yet, the underlying universal principles of how human beings perceive and interact with place…

  Well, that stuff really hasn’t changed since the time of the Romans, who got it from the Greeks, who learned it from the Egyptians…

• 22 HappyReturnee // Jun 19, 2012 at 12:17 pm

  Wow, thanks for answering my question and for turning it into planning language.

  I support densification around nodes and arteries for sure, but we also need exactly what Trish French says we voted against in in the 1995 CityPlan: “They did not want to see townhouses or apartments scattered widely throughout single family areas.”

  I work in health care, and it is increasingly difficult to recruit promising new physicians and surgeons due to the cost of housing here. We will need to sprinkle some multi-family dwellings among the single family areas if we want to be able to attract young up-and-comers in all fields.

  Guess it’s time to write a townhouse-advocacy letter to the city.

  Thanks again.

• 23 Adam Fitch // Jul 15, 2012 at 4:16 pm

  Well, Happy Returnee asks an excellent question, Frances gives a great answer, and so does Trish French. But I will boil it down to a very simple answer — the politics of planning – and NIMBYism.

  Art Cowie said that it took him 5 years to get approval to build a 6-unit complex on a single family lot on Cambie street, in an established sf area. Granted, some of that had to do with introducing the fee-simple townhouse concept for the first time in BC and Vancouver. But nevertheless, the length of the approval process is in large part because of the inertia of NIMBY.

  Another example is the long time involved in the approval of the Sasamat Gardens project at 8th and Sasamat. See this link:

  http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/990330/sasamat.htm

  We all know that the legal process in BC is set up to favour the status quo. The public hearing which is the centerpiece of the rezoning process is devised mainly to enable neighbourhood input – which turns out mostly to be opposition.

  Why would any developer wait 5 years to get a project approved on a quiet street in the middle of a neighbourhood, with a high probability of failure, when he/she could have an easier go of it on a main street?

• 24 Adam Fitch // Jul 15, 2012 at 4:20 pm

  As to A Dave’s argument about the negative aspect of higher density residential development along main streets, the Athens Charter and the Prevention of Ribbbon Development in Britain, the main streets in Vancouver are not the same thing at all. These vancouver street are barely are=terials at all? where do they lead to? No destination in particular. They are hghter traffic streets than others, that’s for sure. but not really very high traffic, compared to suburban arterials.

  In the Vancouver context, these streets are definitely one of the better locations for higher densities.

• 25 Adam Fitch // Jul 15, 2012 at 4:21 pm

  Lewis, I really like your promotion of the BCElectric Railway line as a transit route. Very visionary. I hope it will happen eventually.

• 26 Adam Fitch // Jul 15, 2012 at 4:26 pm

  But, how long would it take to ride a train from Chilliwack to downtown Vancouver on the BCER route?

  Probably not competitive with other modes of travel, in today’s circumstances.

Leave a Comment