It is ironic, or perhaps hypocritical, but certainly unintentional that I corrected your spelling while misspelling Augustin’s name IN THE SAME COMMENT. Nuts!

Hey boohoo… there is nothing wrong with liking your neighbourhood how it is. The underlying issue is NOT that people are resistant to all change and everything else is merely an excuse to resist. It’s not like you can just try out demolishing those affordable buildings and putting uglier more expensive ones up. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the Grandview woodland planner, after some encouragement did admit to me on the phone that the housing that would be built here would likely not be suitable for the current residents. Got it? Or do you just think “oh, they just don’t want change, so what if the change is sleeping in a cardboard box, this is the future and no one wins by being unadaptable”

As for those who disagree with their neighbourhood group… go to city hall, make yourself heard.. You don’t have to create your own organization to do so. However if you want to go right ahead. . Since it is being implied somewhat that putting in all that time and money to be ignored by council is glamourous and self serving.

Ken the title of jak’s blog is “jaks view” not ken’s view, not everyone who lives in gw’s view. There is nothing stopping you from doing the same, but it is a lot of time and energy. We all have to look for the truth by carefully considering all sides and their interests.

Ken, what exactly do you think jak’s underlying motive is?

@Dr. Frankentower:

“We need to make the best, fact-based decisions to ensure that growth and change positively affects our neighbourhoods” (or, “doesn’t unnecessarily impact our neighbourhoods negatively.”

A+ EXACTLY! There are so many wonderful models for “growth”, so many ways to plan for long term change that enrich a neighbourhood while maintaining its culture and heritage.

I hope that the extra time and “going back to the drawing board” that the GW Plan ended up with leads to some more progressive and creative plans that suit the area and its residents better.

@Jay #26

Hey, Jay, here I am.

What aspect of the post are you asking me to comment on?

And thanks for asking—nice to know that my opinions are as esteemable as everyone elses here.

On the other hand…hmmmm…;-)

Boohoo, you are asking for the impossible..that community groups represent every opinion in the community. Sure, they are likely going to hear from the most vocal but I doubt a community group would claim to represent a majority if it was fifty fifty. If you talk to the group and your opinions are not reflected, wouldn’t it make more sense to actually figure out if other people in the community agreed with you? Rather than just saying well *I* disagree with them, therefore they don’t represent everyone? If I had ninety people tell me they were Against something and ten were all for it, I can still say the majority of people who bothered to express themselves are against. No one is saying 100% percent of people hold this opinion, that is impossible.

You seem to have missed the part where I told you the planner admitted that the people who would lose their homes when their buildings were demolished would not be able to afford to live in what would be built. Why exactly are people supposed to actively champion their own displacement from their home? Wouldn’t you be scared of that kind of change?

I love the way you people try so hard to keep the myth of “democracy” alive. It’s sort of touching. Grow up. Politicians work on behalf of their campaign donors and no-one else. Any time organizing your neighbourhood or attending demonstrations or presenting before Council is wasted time. How often must you have your views ignored by politicians before you admit it.
The only time they claim to care about your issues is during elections and even then they’re lying.

@S.S.

There’s a strong parallel between municipal politics and these community groups. I mean it’s blatant hypocrisy when the so called community leader tries to discourage parts of his community from participating. Then R. Chattergee resorts to threats. What kind of community group is this?

You often complain that the city doesn’t listen to the community, but how do you expect the community to be taken seriously when you see stuff like this?

@60

No I’m not, I’m asking that we acknowledge and stop pretending that they do.

I didn’t address your specific example because it’s meaningless to my overall point. Plus I have no idea if it’s true, the context, etc.

Nice to see jeanblesholding her own in her ‘hood just over from the Kettle Fiasco and near enough to The Drive to hear the whirling of bike chains and derailers.

As Doctor F was saying, we have been lied to for so long about what is and what is not ‘good city form’ that there is now a dearth of clear information about what makes good cities and what makes neighbourhoods support social functioning.

I have been impressed for over 35 years with how much we could do with The Drive to build on its success and make it more people friendly.

But bikes are not the first thing that I would reach for. While the bike lobby is too much of a single-issue group to get much respect from the population as a whole, it will be a sign of improving health when ALL our neighbourhoods are a lot more bike friendly.

I would put ahead of bikes—in all city neighbourhoods—making our neighbourhood cores and streets more people friendly—for people on foot, the little ones in strollers or riding small bikes, etc. What the discussion here is veering away from is recognizing the steady gain made through the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. by the car into our all important civic space. It is time that the neighbourhood plans—Hi Jak[-ed]—how’s it going—take the public realm back and put pedestrians first.

Our Greenest City has fumbled this massive issue bringing people together today in other cities all over the globe. Finally, after decades of corporate domination of local councils, and with the sun setting on the Baby Boomers, I believe the people are making a come back.

The flip side of that coin, ably dispensed by the man in the lab coat (with a helper named Egor?) is this insanity that we have to put TOWERS every faaking place.

Right.

So we need TOWERS at the Kettle; we need TOWERS on Hastings (near about the only indigenous neighbourhood I can point a finger too although we are all living in unceeded territories); we need TOWERS at the Rize and at the VSB-owned Kingsgate Mall next door; we need TOWERS everywhere.

Or not.

Outside the Downtown, the ONLY statistic where the tower outstrips the Human Scale building is one: profits to the developer. In every other way one may possible quantify: ecological, economic or social—the tower’s the loser!

Well, let’s hope we see that ratified at the poles this November.

Because, in case you missed it, the two issues are hard-wired together: turning over the public realm in greater quantities for the enjoyment and use of people—not cars—and building neighbourhood fabric in human scale involves one and the same thing.

We make the city, yet in the end the city makes us.

As far as Mt. Pleasant goes, where else is there to develop?

Jay 69

Try here.

http://wp.me/p2FnNe-9U

We did and found enough room to double the local population building nothing higher than 3.5 stories above the street. Problem is, Jay, we do our homework and work hard to know what we’re talking about. Lots of people are just talkin’.

Is that supposed to be retail along 12th?

What are some recent examples of single-family neighbourhoods in North America being transformed into low-rise medium-density housing enclaves?

Not pre-existing row houses etc, mind you, but actual neighbourhood make-overs?

How long did these examples take?

What was the neighbourhood’s reaction?

For those of us who aren’t experts in this area, it would be nice to hear about some success stories, to lend credence to the view that it is even possible.

I would also note that the idea of converting big old houses into separate apartments doesn’t strike me as increasing density by much in many cases. I lived in such a place in Mt Pleasant. 3 singles in 3 apts, with the necessary 3 kitchens, bathrooms, etc. Not sure who used to live there ‘once upon a time’ but it’s entirely possible that it was a family with more than three people in it, hence a decrease in density via the switch.

We acknowledge and stop pretending neighbourhood groups represent the community? No one should speak up for their neighbourhood as it currently is?

You have no idea if it’s true that the plan is to make some condos out what is currently REAL affordable housing for low income individuals. Perhaps you should look at the land use map then. I’ll give you a hint.. They aren’t talking about redeveloping single family homes, and they left the businesses lining commercial as is, and my neighbourhood does not have a lot of fancy expensive apartments. What is left?
#67. Hahaha…even better! I’ll also slap myself for that and from now on remember your name is more like a gust (of air coming) in, than the month of the year or St. Augustine!!

“What are some recent examples of single-family neighbourhoods in North America being transformed…?”

Chris, one excellent example (though not too recent) is in the heart of Strathcona. The “slums” clearance headed by CMHC in the 1960s, which cleared blocks of SF houses to make way for the Raymur social housing towers.

Note, this plan was abandoned as a failure after only a few of the towers were built — the plan was to raze all of Strathcona’s old houses, many of which are now considered heritage and worth over 1 million.

Perhaps one of the City’s most interesting historic videos about this is on youtube, called “To Build a Better City”.

Notice how much the film’s newsreel narrator sounds like Richard Campbell pimping his flavour-of-the-day theories about the wonderful benefits of condo towers!

It seems we’ve come full circle on bad planning policy. 50 years from now we will probably look at Eco-Density and Vision’s paternalistic neighbourhood “plans” with equal horror and disdain.

Not sure these links will work, but otherwise search the title on Youtube. Well worth a few minutes of your time if you are interested in Vancouver history or city planning.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2xdYUk4iAY

Part 2:

“the idea of converting big old houses into separate apartments doesn’t strike me as increasing density by much in many cases.”

Au contraire. Renovating one dwelling unit into 3or 4 increases density 3-400% on that lot. Meanwhile, the City’s population is increasing at a rate of less than 1% per year. This is an example of low-impact density increases that can occur over time without anyone getting upset or causing drastic changes and localized speculation in a neighbourhood.

Notice also, just off Cambie/15th in your hood some of these old houses are recovery/support houses integrated right into a West Side community without any impact to neighbours.

Compare the impact of 6 or 7 easily manageable community houses like this (with maybe a dozen bedrooms) spread around a neighbourhood vs. one Biltmore or Fraser Street or Raymur social housing tower being erected near your family home. I know which I’d rather live near.

Clearly, there are ways to increase density and provide social housing in all our neighbourhoods (including West Side) with minimal impacts on the neighbours. These lessons were learned 50 years ago in Strathcona, but appear to have been forgotten by planners now.

@Chris Keam #74

Actually you might be surprised. There is one four-story house in Mount Pleasant at least with three suites and a coach house where my wife used to live. The top suite had four singles as roomies, there was a couple on the main floor and the basement had, I think, two roomies. The owner lived in the coach house.

I have no idea the legality of that for most areas, but it sure as heck was a good example of invisible density with arguably no impacts whatsoever on neighbours. I would argue it’s a great model for increasing density, and at the very least these renovations should be legalized in neighbourhoods throughout the city. Just imagine what it could do to the neighbourhood vitality and density in Shaughnessy! Heh.

The universe (and the Bulablog Twitter feed) provides.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/67761?utm_content=buffercebaf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

And speaking about Metro Van growth strategies…

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/250265941.html

@Dr Frankentower.

Gosh, implying I have cognitive difficulties really brings me onside to your position. Please re-read what I actually wrote and explain how 3 storey walk-ups are a good fit for families and the aging, and how a gradual transformation will address the loss of families to the suburbs which is having an immediate impact on sprawl (and btw helps explain your quoted growth stats)? Provide some examples and proof that these plans are more than vapourware. Geez, even the link I provided does a better job of addressing these issues than your insulting comments, but it also highlights the significant challenges in bringing about the type of development you are touting.

“However, your suggestion that my remarks are laughable only highlights your ignorance of the topic. There is a saying about being silent and thought a fool. Do you know how it ends?”

“Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself. You are confusing new product innovations with brand loyalty. If this was a Woody Allen movie David Olgilvy would step into frame and school you on your ignorance about advertising and marketing.”

I guess “respectful conversation and idea sharing” only flows in one direction.

@Bill

Not only is your uninvited intrusion into my conversation with Dr Frankentower a further indication of your unhealthy obsession with my comments, it’s an opportunity to point out the logic ‘fail’ of your comparison between my remarks in this thread and the lousy example you proffer in what I assume is an intimation of hypocrisy. Let me explain:

I entered the conversation with a profession of ignorance and a sincere wish to be informed. I brought up specific points that I felt I didn’t understand and asked for reputable examples with which to educate myself. Heck, I even shared a relevant link in support of the position held by Frankentower et al. In constrast, Ms Rich attacked my remarks as laughable after I provided a very relevant example of my position. She went on to provide a counter-argument that didn’t fit the criteria. Of course you thought those were good points. Birds of a feather I suppose. Faced with a second, extensively footnoted repudiation of her position she claimed ‘case studies’ (which wasn’t what I provided, but rather a well documented academic abstract) are biased.

Well, I’m sorry (for the people who have to endure your monomania), but I’m always happy to engage in polite dialogue and to learn a thing or two. I don’t even mind if it gets a bit ‘spirited’ even if I end up looking the fool. But, insult me without reason and one will discover, as you, Ms Rich, and Dr Frankentower can attest, that I am happy to put my tongue to the whetstone and respond in a sharp fashion. I’ve dealt with bullies such as yourself all throughout my life. You’re pretty much all the same and not much changes, which is to say that spooning up a taste of your own medicine invariably invokes howls of hurt and injury, even if the Internet now gives you luxury of anonymity with which to traffic your foolishness. You bring nothing of value to this conversation and the space would be better by your absence. Think about it and consider the option of using your brain to better represent your ideology instead of the passive aggressive non sequiters which characterize so much of the content you provide.

@Bulabloggers All

So refreshing to see what looks like an honest effort to get at the facts… In spite of the problems posed by someone impersonating a Doctor (lab coat and all) and some one else calling me Mr Villegas. I’m old enough to have bought the Playboy with the Jimmy Carter interview where, among other faxinating revelations the then-presidential candidate exhorted one and all to “Just call me ‘Jimmy’.” Please, call me Lewis—or Jimmy—Mr Villegas just sounds too ‘important’ for the Fabulablog (or our provincial little city).

Density can be measured in “units per acre”. However, that requires establishing the size of the “unit”. I use 800 sq. ft. (80 m2) partly because it relates well to the bungalows built in our city up to about 1930. It becomes a slippery slope to ‘mandate’ how many people can live in 800 s.f. Those numbers vary throughout our city and throughout the world. Even when considering single room occupancy the market is always in a downward trend. But, suffice it to say—with room for error—that a row house can have a floor plate of 1000 s.f. and thus be counted as providing 5 units in 4 floors (even if that math really doesn’t add up). Then, divide that by 2x and count a row house as being able to house 7 to 8 people as SRO-replacement, with a live-in or part-time care giver and room left over for common area. That—more or less—gives you the calculus that I use to net out infill densities.

What are the best examples of densification? Well, Frank Ducote’s home town (San Francisco if I have it right) is not a bad place to start. Dr. F mentions Strathcona—save the Raymur and McClean Park sites—hard to argue with that. Kitsilano since the 1970s has been experimenting with RT-X housing. It was an effort to build up from R-housing (i.e. “single family residential” or sfr to planning wonks). But, the problem for RT-X was always the parking. Frank and I did a project together in Maillardville before Expo 1986 where I hoped to discover the DNA of just that ‘urban form’ lying amongst the footprints of pre-1930 houses built by French Canadians imported from Shebrook to work at the timber mill on the Fraser River. Alas, that experiment also crashed on the rocks of walk-up apartments with underground parking. We needed the ‘fee-simple row house’. That missing cipher in our urbanism is what I came on the Fabula to champion. It was finally approved and made legal for the first time in Vancouver and B.C. two years ago. But, it was 27 years or so too late for our project in Maillardville. Notwithstanding, we can look to Quebec City, Montreal, Greenwich Village, and Boston Beacon Hill and Back Bay as examples of how single family neighbourhoods intensify successfully into high-density, human scale places.

Oh, let’s not quibble about the dates, shall we?? I mean… One has to be prepared to swallow the Kool-Aid and look at examples that pre-date the onset of the automobile in North America (1935-1955) or there is just no point in talking about ‘good’ (human-scale) urban places. So, Cabbagetown, Toronto; Charlottown, PEI; Lunnenburg, N.S.; the Hydrostones in Halifax; Alexandria and Richmond in Virginia; Seaside, Florida; all these places and more achieve urban densities without sacrificing human scale. The point of the exercise is to pose the question: if we don’t have to give up that, if we don’t have to agree to live in anonymity, then why is the tower option the only game in town in our city?

Why indeed!

Now, the question about ‘good’ examples of densification crosses the Atlantic even as it moves back through the centuries. I place the origins of the ‘modern’ high-density human-scale ‘quartier’ with Palladio’s town houses in his home town of Vicenza in the 1560s. The French picked up on that in 1600 in Paris (and swiftly moved it across their vast and agriculturally rich territory). Indigo Jones did as much for the English crown in the 1660s—the royal houses of Europe were hard-wired when it came to good ideas about making BIG money. However, Inigo’s patron king had his head chopped off right in front of the (Inigo Jones designed, classical and Roman Catholic-looking) Banqueting Hall in Westminster. Hard to imagine a greater set back for an up and coming architect. How do you recover from that kind of blow? There is no evidence that Inigo every did. But Holland kept the flame alive, and the 1660s expansion of Amsterdam—though a green field expansion—can also be seen as a very successful ‘intensification’ using human-scale high-density product.

Difficulty for us is to imagine a high-density scenario that works because people walk in it as the primary form of transportation. Hard for us to imagine ‘walking’ and not ‘driving’ as the prime determinant of ‘good’ urban form. But that is where the answer lies. The car is still there—sporting its brand-new, electric, solar-cell driven technology—but the way it is being used is different. People are driving their car only for occasional trips; weekend get-aways; and large-volume shopping. The rest of the time—getting to work, shopping, services, and other related trips—are all within easy walking distance of their front doors.

Try that in the suburbs. Even in the suburban neighbourhoods in our city, like Oakridge.

@Frankentower:

the city’s growth RATE is decreasing because the population is increasing. It’s statistics.

If 10,000 people move to a city of 100,000, that’s a 10 per cent increase. If the same number moves to a city of 1 million, it’s 1 per cent. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a continuing and large demand for homes in Vancouver proper, a demand that is driving up prices beyond what is affordable.

Jay @ 90

“And please don’t give me your 15 – 20% empty condo stat because it is completely false. The average in Vancouver is 7.7%, with the bulk of them being downtown.”

Yes, the city average is 7.7%, which is over 50% higher than normal for cities, and amounts to over 22,000 empty units in Vancouver. Remember the Globe article we referenced? “Over the last 20 years, the number of empty units equals 35 towers, each 20 storeys high.”

But I thought you actually read the report, Jay, because then you’d know damn well that Andy Yan’s research shows that nearly 25% of units (1 in 4) in Coal Harbour are sitting empty. The reason the bulk of those 20+ thousand empty units in the City are downtown is because that’s where the new Condo Towers have been concentrated… so far.

Tessa @ 95

“the city’s growth RATE is decreasing because the population is increasing. …If 10,000 people move to a city of 100,000, that’s a 10 per cent increase. If the same number moves to a city of 1 million, it’s 1 per cent…. It’s statistics.”

Wow, Tessa, did you really venture out on that limb? Let me save you the 3 minutes it would have taken you to check the, um, statistics:

1986-91: 40,497 more people (+9.4% growth rate)
1996: 43,364 (9%)
2001: 31,663 (6.2%)
2006: 32,370 (5.9%)
2011: 25,461 (4.4%)

The city’s growth rate is less than half what it was 20 years ago because a lot less people are moving here than they were 20 years ago. On average, over 3 thousand less per year – 40% less people than two decades ago. And trending down.

So, remind me again, why are we rushing to ram towers into all our neighbourhoods?

“It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a continuing and large demand for homes in Vancouver proper, a demand that is driving up prices beyond what is affordable.”

Well, yes, Tessa, and as I’ve been patiently trying to explain to Jay, the numbers show quite clearly that it is investor demand, not population demand, that continues to drive new Condo Tower construction in the City. The aggressive policy direction Planning and Council are pushing in our neighbourhoods has nothing to do with their hubris about “saving the world.”

As Geller used to say in here: Our Council and Planning Departments have become addicted to the profits from land lift.

Now that Yaletown and Coal Harbour are way overbuilt, they are pursuing condo towers out in our neighbourhoods with a singular, self-destructive drive that is exactly like a junkie looking to score the next hit. Facts be damned. Ignore the all the concerns of those around you. Just… make… that… next… big… score… and… everything will be all right.