Frances Bula header image 2
← →

How to create lower-cost housing in very expensive Vancouver: a kick-start

March 12th, 2012 · 194 Comments

The affordable-housing task force, after five quick weeks of meetings, has come up with a very preliminary to-do list to try to create lower-cost housing for working people.

Here are some of their ideas.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • Julia

    The units that sold at Marine and Cambie… will the residents there be able to walk to a job that pays enough to support the mortgage?

    If not, we have totally missed the point.

  • Sean Bickerton

    Lewis, I have often admired your posts and the innovative solutions you propose.

    But your case would be helped more if your bias against towers of any kind didn’t keep peeking through, via statements hat are patently false: i.e. “It is more or less accepted that towers are energy hogs.”

    Living in a condo tower downtown with shared steam heat supplied by District Energy gives us the lowest GhG footprint in North America. Further, living in a real urban downtown core, we are within walking distance to most services and right next door to transit, allowing us to give up a car that living in outlying neighourhoods would require.

    Further, our hot water also comes from District Energy, so that our hot water supply is the most energy-efficient possible, shared among many homes rather than individually generated in each small unit, wasting a great deal of energy.

    Further, my building, Paris Place in Tinseltown, was built in the 1990s using energy efficient materials, double-glazed windows, etc., as opposed to single family homes that are much older and more wasteful in regards to heat loss and energy use.

    I grew up in a single-family home. I know the beauty of that way of life too. But I now choose, as do hundreds of millions of people around the planet, to live in a dense city rather than a village, and I enjoy the affordable housing form that condos provide. It was certainly the only thing near downtown that we could afford, and it makes the way of urban living we enjoy possible.

    We like knowing our neighbours in Paris Place, making decisions communally, setting our own rules and fashioning a large sense of community out of a very diverse population of different races, ages, economic backgrounds, languages and religions.

    This debate is so sterile – constantly attempting to paint condos as vile, soul-less things or the enemy of good planning, rather than just seeing condo towers as a very popular option among different building forms for urban (as opposed to country) centres.

    If we ended the false debate between “Condos bad, single family homes good”, and recognized instead that variety is the spice of life, we could move on to a rational, adult discussion of which forms are most appropriate where.

    So please drop inane statements like “It is more or less accepted that towers are energy hogs.” and stick to fact-based arguments. You will garner more respect for them.

  • Roger Kemble

    Lewis @ # 100

    From City web page PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED: Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2012
    Latest Rize proposal . . . “two-storey commercial podium, including artist’s production space on the 10th Avenue frontage: 241 dwelling units, including 15 units proposed under the Short Term Incentives for Rental (STIR) program.
    Building heights of 5, 5, 9 and 19 storeys.
    Floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.38. underground parking for 320 vehicles.
    Increased sidewalk widths on portions of the Kingsway and 10th Avenue frontages.    ”

    You say, “We are going to show on Monday night at St. Patrick’s Church Hall, that we can achieve equivalent density to tower neighbourhoods with 3.5-storey built form.”

    I would caution you not to try this Lewis. I have just crunched the numbers: absolutely, you will not squeeze all of the above accommodation onto the site in a 3.5-storey built form configuration, nor indeed anywhere near. I fear Lewis, as I have tried to explain to you so many times, you are way off the mark on this . . .

    May I, too, corroborate Sean @ #102 re energy consumption, again as I have tried to caution you so many times before.

  • Bill McCreery

    Stepping back a bit to cool the overheated room might be a good idea. Some of my own thoughts — We all tend to preach here most of the time and that’s OK, I want to hear others ideas and opinions, but sometimes the style of expression becomes to personal and at times to repetitive. In both cases I tune out.

    Again stepping back, and thinking about the densification process. Way back in the mid-seventies GVRD Planning had some talented people like Bob Burgess, and can’t remember the head, but he was good. They had a programme to encourage developers to densify whereby they selected projects as “Compact Housing Demonstration Projects” and printed up a 4 page brochure explaining the good things selected projects did so that developers would replicate them. This programme was moderately successful.

    A 10 unit townhouse project I did at 1st and MacDonald, Cherry West, was one of those selected. I mention this to point out the difference in what is considered to be necessary density then and now. My clients had purchased a big old suited house on a corner lot and we built 10-2 storey, 2 bed and den townhouses, I think the FSR was 0.75 with underground parking, fabulous landscaping front and back, and roof decks. The units were about 1100, 1450 and one at 2200 sf. After that I did another similar density 6 unit (1210 sf) infill townhouse project close by on 1st, west of Trafalgar where we retained the existing house, which has been restored as condos.

    Both of these are incredibly livable. I’ve kept in touch with owners over time and they love them. Turnover is very low.

    Compare those to today at two levels: land cost and densities planners seem to have determined are necessary.

    1) Land cost. These were townhouse projects and typically they were economically viable because of much lower relative raw land values at the time. Land cost in my above East Van example works out to $222/sf buildable, density of 0.9 FSR, and for West End STIR’s at $164/sf at a density of 7.43 FSR and rents at $2.70/sf. Neither of these produce affordable housing.

    Like Frank and Lewis, town/row houses are my favourite urban housing form. Unfortunately in the future they will be the exception, not the norm due to Vancouver’s raw land cost.

    2) Council/Planners densities. Vancouver has become widely recognized for its innovative Conditional Use Zoning. A current example is the RIZE site’s C-3A zoning of 1.0 FSR outright use, and then you earn as much as 3.0 FSR as a conditional use if Planning accepts the proponent’s design, the project is a ‘good neighbour’ and gives back in an acceptable way to the community. This approach, which has served Vancouver very well, has now been perverted to the point it is the antithesis. Vancouver’s planning procedures, instead of being one of the best examples of good planning practice have become instead anti-planning.

    Somehow in the mad rush to densify the Director of Planning has been given the authority to take sites such as these one by one to Council with densities often double the maximum for conditional use, in the RIZE case densities is 5.55 FSR. So, instead of starting at 1.0 FSR it appears they are now starting at the maximum and justifying additional densities for all sorts of reasons.

    Is it any wonder the Planning Commission, as documented in their report to Council last August, spent 2 years to find out that neighbourhoods across the City no longer trust the City regarding planning matters?

    I hope we can find an acceptable balance for densifying and can do so with a planning process that works for all involved. If the prevailing mentality prevails and the City is trying to build 4 to 5000 units of affordable housing per year in addition to the 4 to 5000 units of mostly condo housing we currently produce all hell is going to break loose, including the pressure to densify and on the land affordability sides of the equations.

  • Higgins

    Julia #99,
    Read Glissando’s words #40 …
    “No amount of stainless steel Energy Star appliances, granite counter tops, wooden floors, ‘enclosed/sundecks/den/balconies’ will make a 1000sqft apt. feel like a 2000 sqft and cost like a 500 sqft.
    That would go against parasitic expansion ideals.
    Anything else that adds to the rising cost of building houses, like higher end materials, amenities, underground parking(which I find it to be still necessary as cars are not going to go anywhere, as they’ll probably come back as ‘electric’) water fountains, indoor swimming pools, exercise rooms, green roofs, LEED features and other sophisticated Green Symbolism extras, are nothing but a sprinkle of Chocolate on top of your already burning hot Crap-puccino.”

    Your thoughts, to the dot, Julia!

    The key to solving this stands in this:
    “Housing Affordability in Canada needs… Perestroika, or something similar.”
    I totally agree with Glissy on that, because look what happened on Saturday at the Marine Gateway sold out development… don’t you think now, that the Mayor Robertson’s LOL Task Force look now like a bunch of jokers? 🙂 People in this city/ province are able and ready, to outbid any property twice the price, if the price is right, and the ‘creme dela creme’ are talking row houses and better development permit application practices… Pitiful.

    Sean #102
    For LOL, “Paris Place in Tinseltown”… How on Earth did anyone come up with such a name, for a building steps away from Chinatown and inches from the original T&T?
    And for the rest IMO, STIR program is one of the most idiotic initiatives I ever heard of, ever!

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Always a pleasure to hear from you, Sean.

    You are correct. I failed to append the usual caveat that I support towers downtown. I urge that we devise ways of exiting towers from both the top, and the bottom for those extreme and rare times when it becomes imperative to save lives. I recognize a kind of consensus that has the Central Business District best represented by the shape of its skyline.

    In the Tyee series that competes next week, Patrick Condon gives this account of the point you raise—the GHG footprint of hyper-density neighbourhoods:

    It turns out that energy use is lowest in the downtown. Not on a per hectare basis, though. On a per hectare basis, the production of GHG was higher downtown than anywhere else in the city. But on a per person basis, people living downtown produced only a quarter as much GHG per person as those living in the southern half of the city. Why? Two reasons. For one thing, most people living in the southern half of the city live in detached homes that, because they are exposed to cold air on all sides, take a lot of energy to heat. For another thing, because services are more spread out in the southern half of the city, residents are more inclined to drive than to walk, bike or take transit.

    Yet, he too goes on to list “towering drawbacks”, which I reported here:

    http://wp.me/p1mj4z-Bm

  • Julia

    I have built 12 home over my lifetime, mostly for myself. A bathroom that is 10X 10 is not half the price of a bathroom that is 10X20. The toilet cost the same, the sink costs the same, the plumbing stack cost the same. The bigger it gets, the less it cost to build per square foot, however, we seem to apply a standard cost per square foot regardless of the overall size.

    Certainly, there must be an optimal size/cost somewhere.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    [T]own/row houses are my favourite urban housing form. Unfortunately in the future they will be the exception, not the norm due to Vancouver’s raw land cost.

    Bill McCreery 104

    I wonder how much of this “Vancouver raw land cost” is due to the expectation of being able to rezone at or above 3 FSR?

    With another Bula blogger, we ran through the numbers the year before the Olympics and reported here that the urban houses were coming in at around $1,000,000—causing a minor shock wave as I recall.

    We had land in the DTES at $270,000 for each half of a subdivided lot (your calcs now up to $400,000). Cost of construction/SF we had as $160 (4-storey wood) to $225 (conc. tower). Your calcs: $23o. This one is a puzzler because we were working in a heated-up construction market leading up to the Olympic deadline. Soft costs & profit were on par.

    I’ve recently met someone who grew up in a 19th cent row house in Beacon Hill. To my amazement, he said it was 5 stories, original construction. I would have thought four plus basement at a max.

    Still, this is a bump over 0.9 FSR. And, the point I’m driving is whether or not the market will innovate; find places to reduce costs (rather than cut corners); and build larger than 1800 SF. In a twist of fate, I envision some of the urban houses turning into 4 or 5 unit stratas. I know of one local example.

    I’ve always wondered about ways to building the party walls without using unit masonry or cast in place concrete. The former requires forming assembly and knock-down. Tilt-up concrete has always bubbled up to the top of my mind (the walls are poured on the ground, one on top of the other layer-cake style, then lifted into position with a crane when the concrete cures—it’s used in warehouse construction). However, with a 33 foot lot, the 33-foot party wall would only reach the first 3 stories.

    Will it be possible to realize savings in framing a 16.5-foot wide house between structural concrete or brick walls? For one, balloon framing techniques that enclose the entire envelope first, then go inside to stick frame the floor platforms and walls in an enclosed space provide significant advantages over working in the rain.

    Once the party walls are up, the rest of the exterior envelope is roof and probably glazing, or glazing and structural mullions—expensive, but fast to put up. All the wiring, plumbing, heating and sprinklering would be easier to install for two reasons: (1) a compact footprint; and (2) the cookie cutter nature of the product.

    The roof and attic storey may come as manufactured trusses ready to assemble, swung off the back of a flat bed truck with a crane.

    One would expect that there would be savings in insulation since the exposed faces of the building (only front & back façades) are considerably smaller than the conventional bungalow.

    What other advantages can the swing crane provide? One of Roger’s most salient points about the tower is that it is designed to go up within the radius of the hammer head crane.

    Might these considerations combine to produce lower prices in a competitive marketplace?

    One of the great advantages of the Vancouver Special—”Stucco Box” edition—was that it became a known quantity to build, and for all appearances replicated on a site-by-site basis many of the advantages of mass production.

    The higher density urban house at FSR 2.4 will not be a panacea for high market valuations. But, it may prove a hot bed for innovation.

    The urban design can kick in a few perks.

    The most obvious is re-writing the parking regulations for these structures when they are built on the arterials. With fast & efficient transit (BRTrolley/LRT) I would be tempted to leave parking up to the developer (i.e. = 0).

    A revitalized arterial might include local access lanes that might be able to contribute a significant amount of parking in an orderly design that avoids the look and feel of a crowded car lot (or the front yard in a Toronto side-by-side with no rear lane).

    Finally, the exiting requirements were clearly not created for this kind of structure. Apartments and towers typically allow 15% of their floor space for common area and exiting. That is a hidden “waste” factor that the urban houses might avoid for a comparative advantage.

  • Glissando Remmy

    Thought of The Evening

    “Some shacks are built for shmucks, and some are… not!”

    Good observation Julia # 107.
    I’ll fill in with some inside track info…

    Condos are for shmucks.
    Sized and priced to move, accordingly, for the average middle class/ small family on the growth/ for the medium income dreamer and of course last but not least, for the professional flip-flopper.

    Expensive enough to bring a nice round juicy profit for the developer, yet not too expensive so it would not become an orphan.
    A simple philosophy behind it: “Everyone wants to be loved and adopted, even small size condos!” 🙂
    On the other hand, when it comes to the large, top floor apartments, PH/ walk-ups/ TH… the sale price per sqft drops dramatically, despite the fact that for whoever buys them, money is no object. There is enough room to negotiate, coffee is served, truffles…

    Buying is not for everybody, and it might not be a good idea especially when the prices are at the ridiculous threshold that they are! Renting sometimes is a much “healthier” option. especially in volatile times!

    IMHO, the condo market right now (not only in Vancouver) has become one of the main factors responsible for the continuous eroding of the middle-class, as they’ll tend to go more and more into debt, out of the desperation sprung from trying to enter the ‘market”… and for what… for nothing but a piece of crap in the sky or dirt on the ground… and hey, there’s never been a better time to be hypnotized by the likes of Bob Rennie & comp., with their trademark triple commands: “Location, location, location” or more recently “Transportation, transportation, transportation” LOL, to which I would like to add “Speculation, speculation, speculation”!

    After all, ask any realtor, developer, or marketer and they’ll give you the same BCTF’s answer “Oh, it’s not about the money! It’s about the people, the experience, the walk-ability…”

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    We live in Vancouver… and it is just about time we did something about it.

    Glissy, you comin’ to the show tomorrow night?

  • Mark Allerton

    I find it interesting that according to Bill’s math in #85, it’s impossible to build an 1800 sq ft living space in Vancouver for less than $723,000 even if someone is giving the land away – and then Bill goes on to say it is land costs that would make row housing unaffordable! Two years ago you could still buy an SFH in East Van for that sort of money and people were complaining about it even then.

    I’m not completely unsympathetic to the point-of-view that newly constructed row houses would not be affordable. I believe fee-simple row housing would have made a significant difference to Vancouver’s housing affordability *had it been built all along as it has in other cities*. Depreciation is a friend of affordability.

    As for what to do now, given the need to remedy the oversights of Vancouver’s housing past – I suspect that Lewis is on the right track, with his reference to the Vancouver Special – we need to find the new “cookie cutter” that can be used to reduce costs of new construction (while at the same time not stinking up the joint.)

  • Julia

    here is another problem. I live 35 minutes from my job in the Broadway corridor in 1350 sf for $400K. I move 15 minutes closer to town and the price jumps $300K for less square footage.

    HELLO, 3o minutes a day times 5 days a week is just over 2 hour a week in additional commute.

    Affordability is far too elusive with far too much sacrifice to solve the problem. Either the metro Vancouver area has to catch up or Vancouver needs to get over itself in terms of value.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Here’s the rub, Julia…

    Are you moving 15 mins closer by foot, by bike, by car, by BRT/LRT, by B-Line, etc.?

    I don’t have the numbers. But, there is a core-periphery economics that will be priced according to some of the answers to my questions.

  • Bill McCreery

    I agree Lewis 108:

    “I wonder how much of this “Vancouver raw land cost” is due to the expectation of being able to rezone at or above 3 FSR?”.

    I have thought for some time that a part of the high cost of land is the ‘expectation’ aspect. In 1973-74 TEAM downzoned the West End, Kits and CBD (Fairview Slopes and, if I remember correctly, Broadway were upzoned). Some predicted Armageddon, but it never happened. The market adjusted. Developers didn’t initially like our Conditional Use Zoning, but in particular, when they found out the resulting finished product sold well, they bought in. There are those who know this subject better, and perhaps the specific history. They may be able to offer additional and differing perspectives.

    I’m not suggesting there needs to be much in the way of down zoning, but we do need to create zoning certainty in order to limit speculation, and therefore increased land costs that go with it, as well as for better neighbourhood fit. We also need to be more concerned about getting heights right. I wonder if a convincing argument can be made to zone certain lands in the City for town/row house zoning and that such housing would be built? Maybe the Affordable Housing Panel will pursue that avenue since they’re singling it out as a desired housing type.

    Running out of time, but proforma numbers can be crunched all sorts of ways. Even if smaller units are built and construction costs are cut, the numbers will still be in the +/- $1M range.

  • Roger Kemble

    Bill Mc @ #104

    “Stepping back a bit to cool the overheated room might be a good idea. Some of my own thoughts — We all tend to preach here most of the time and that’s OK, I want to hear others ideas and opinions, but sometimes the style of expression becomes to personal and at times to repetitive. In both cases I tune out.”

    Bill dear friend, you disappoint. “cool the overheated room might be a good idea” Oh really sir, you presume too much upon yourself . . . a passionate warning may better describe it. “ We all tend to preach here most of the time and that’s OK ” Well, well thanqu so much for giving us your permission.

    Let it be said here, once and for all, I, Roger K have no political ambitions or covetous business aspirations. Stat. Can you, Bill, say the same?

    All of Frances’s State of Vancouver blog is personal gossip and I deplore any politician who tries to use it as a platform.

    As for personal, your comments appear to be directed towards comments about Lewis.

    Well, for me, I have worked with and watched Lewis for nearly ten years and let me warn you the man is a menace. Text book warn us about such personalities: warnings, too, about his weak, gullible followers.

    Thanq heavens Lewis chose a benign subject to wallow in and not politics or the military: endeavors wherein he could do irrevocable hurt and damage.

    Tonite he will be telling his acolytes how many angels he can fit on the head of a pin. Most, if not all, in the audience, (only the converted will show to this one), will salivate on his every word. Condon will be promoting his CO² free Stalin Allees. I don’t know the other guy.

    You, Bill, do you want to be a part of that?

    Now that is personal, isn’t it. Often it takes courage to be personal, Bill. But it must be said.

  • Julia

    Lewis #113 – transit.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    15 minutes is a good transit increment. Some consider 20 minutes the optimum increment. But the speed and efficiency of transit comes into the picture.

    If you are riding a local bus, 15 minutes doesn’t take you far. Even less further if you factor in the wait at the stop. Going to work, that shouldn’t be a problem in our current system.

    If you are riding a B-Line, stop frequency is reduced, you’re likely packed like sardines, and the 15 minutes gets you further.

    Bus Rapid Transit (Trolleys) with signal and lane priority is a game changer. The light is always green for the bus, and the bus rides its own lane. No more swerving around parked cars, or pulling to and from the curb for a bus stop. 15 minutes on BRT—how about it Voony—is that going to take us 5 miles? If it does, it would be the ride from Marine Drive to Broadway. Somehow, I think that’s a tad too optimistic… but I’m not a transit engineer.

    LRT (The Olympic Line) uses the same road space as BRT, has lane priority due to the rails being embedded, and can trip the signals to green. But, if you rode the Olympic Line, the real difference is the ride. Stonger, smoother, not necessarily faster than BRT, although those trains can pick up speed.

    They can also pick up a lot more passengers. It is possible to run two trains together, I am told, and double the BRT capacity.

    Another interesting idea is adding a café car (with toilets) and running LRT rouge on the main railway lines. We are now talking in increments of 20 minute rides, to be sure.

    But I still think your observation will hold true, Julia.

    For every 20-minute ride increment I expect the price of land will drop and the cost of housing will fall with it. We are not going to be able to ride LRT to a place where the land is free, but with some of the other measures Bill (114) mentions, we may be able to secure stability for the housing market.

    Transit (Julia 116) is a fundamental component of that more stable urbanism.

  • Roger Kemble

    Lewis @ # 17

    Well at last Julia you can ride safely home. The omnipotent oracle has spoken.

    But, but, but, but . . .

    “. . . but I’m not a transit engineer.” Oh but you have an opinion on everything . . . And neither are you an experienced, nor even trained, and certainly lacking the inclination and talents of an urban design specialist, or whatever you call yourself.

    Whooah, the truth at last . . . after all the unctuous, oleaginous reassurances, at last, an admission from the oracle.

    I watched as you walk away with the Nanaimo charrette with your half baked version of what you thought Krier may have done, only to have city council walk our on your presentation because your lack of our city insulted them.

    I wonder what your forty odd SUNN students have to say about that charrette. How come you never give them a voice in your myriad prolix personal descriptions of that fiasco? Forty opinionated students and nothing to say: weird! What happened to David’s input? Not a peep.

    I know personally two other practitioners who have tried to work with you only to be put off by your single minded arrogance.

    Rest assured Julia you will get home safely even if you have to walk but not with the oracle’s help. And heaven help the city if all you gullible attendees tonight fall for his oily whiles.

    Charming, measured, and as I say unctuous, oleaginous empty.

    With Bill McCreery’s talent and experience he should know better.

  • Roger Kemble

    PS . . . and the above ain’t personal, it’s professional!

  • brilliant

    @Julua 101-Its a long walk from Marine and Cambie to Beijing.

  • Frank Ducote

    GR@109 “Condos are for schmucks.”

    I used to think you were were mildly entertaining. Now, however, you’ve really crossed the line, fella (or gal). Your navel-gazing negativity and pomposity have really gotten the better of you.

    How is it not possible to take this gross insult personally, if one is a condo dweller? (IMO, people on this blog who aren’t condo dwellers should also feel outraged by this slander against their fellow citizens, but I don’t sense any outrage from them, for whatever reason. Fear of your wrath, perhaps?)

    You’re insulting the many thousands of condo dwellers in this city, whether owners or renters, who live in and probably enjoy their condo lifestyles. Certinly they live there because, among other things, they meet their budgetary limits and often have great proximity to local, walkable conveniences and amenities, not to mention transit. As Sean B. has expressed more eloquently and patiently than I am able to.

    Goody for you if you’re able to or wish to live under other circumstances, but please stop the slanderr and maliciopusness. And maybe once and for all stop hiding behind your self-indulgent and protective anonomity.

    You owe people a sincere apology, but I won’t hold my breath.

  • MB

    Everyman #8.

    Clearly you prefer the suburbs. Or Prince George. Why even talk about affordability in Vancouver where land supply and its price are at a premium?

    Wait a minute, you didn’t even comment on affordable housing, at least not very much.

  • Glissando Remmy

    Thought of The Day

    “Vancouver has become an Amusement Park. And no, you’re wrong, people… You-Are-The-Amusement!”

    Frank, how is it going, man, what seems to be bothering you?
    You want an apology from me? Is that it? You’ve got it, buddy! There, I do apologize for calling you, Frank Ducote (one of many thousands of condo owners)… a shmuck!
    Happy now? So, we are good!?

    Having said that, you’d have to cut me some slack, ’cause here’s the thing:

    If you recently paid $500,000 for a 2Bdrm, 725sqft+den in an over-inflated market … you are a shmuck.
    If you took out a mortgage ten times your yearly income… you are a shmuck.
    If you bought your condo and now will have to eat bread and yogurt for the rest of your life … you are a shmuck.
    If you paid half a $Million for a cubicle in the sky, and you furnished it from… IKEA… you are a shmuck.
    If you’ll have to take a second job to make ends meet, and to make your mortgage payments… you are a shmuck.
    If your philosophy have lately metamorphosed into “smaller is better” and “noisy is heavenly”… you are a shmuck.
    If your wife moves back to her parents because she cannot live with you anymore, in a one bedroom on the 1st floor, two small kids and a cat, only because you “needed” to enter the market with all your savings … you are a shmuck.

    But if you bought your 1200 sqft condo 12 years ago, for $120,000, on the 12th floor of a waterfront tower, facing the Bay, and you are now mortgage free, and thinking of selling, making a nice profit, and moving to Timbuktu … you are not a shmuck.

    Does that sound, fair enough to you, Frank?

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Frank Ducote

    Well, Glissy, if that’s the best you can bring yourself to do, I’ll accept your apology in the same rude and condescending spirit in which it is offered. Thanks.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ Rog, 115. Roger, I’m not giving anyone permission but myself. When I write something, and the same when I speak, I do so only for myself as I expressly stipulated in #104 above. As I’ve said I find much of the discourse here stimulating and informative. You and Lewis are people who often do make such comments and who also challenge the status quo.

    You’ve always been a talented, innovative architect. I used to study your work when it was published in the ‘Canadian Architect’ when I was in University. And you’re still being thought provoking.

    That was how I knew John Chislett was in Vancouver. He had worked with you on one of those published projects (we had become friends in London when we worked there in the mid-sixties). When I came to town he was the only person I knew, and I was grateful that he was able to put me up till I got my own digs. I wouldn’t have found him otherwise.

    Let me clarify also that I doubt I will be running again, so I’m not really a politician any longer. Even when I was I was advised to stay out of the blogisphere, but I did it because I find it interesting and I rather enjoy interacting with you lot. And even when and if I or any other aspirant wants to join in here and elsewhere, isn’t it a good thing? Don’t you (voters) want to know what these people think? What their values are? I think anyone who has the courage to put it on the line on a daily basis deserves credit not derision.

    None of us are perfect, especially me. I do not know Lewis as well as you do, but I do find many of his ideas interesting. He does seem to be somewhat single minded, but we, therefore, do know where he’s coming from. I also find Patrick Condon’s ideas and work very interesting. He is offering a clearly articulated alternative to a transit system for Vancouver that I would like to see seriously evaluated as an alternative to the Broadway underground. Jim Lehto is a knowledgeable planner/urban design consultant (M.arch/urban des, Harvard). He worked at the City when the conditional use zoning was developed among other relevant experience.

    I like to keep an open mind. I’m attending tonight because I want to hear what these individuals have to say as well as from others. Perhaps some of those who support the RIZE proposal and who had a hand in bringing it this far might also attend tonight or on some other night soon to present their side of the argument.

  • Everyman

    @MB 122
    Your argument depends on a false dichotomy.

    I tend to believe largely in the case others have made here, that the affordable housing crisis is less to do with a manufactured land shortage, than the rampant flood of speculative buying flowing in from certain parts of the globe.

  • Michelle

    Frank Ducote #124…
    Hmmm, you know what Frank, I am a recent condo buyer, three and a half years and counting, like an inmate counts the days till he’ll get out, and I am kicking myself for that every day.
    I am getting a shock every day when I am opening my mail box, for I expect some new info from my bank anytime, as they hold the title for now. Thanks god I am not working in a unstable company, and my income is at least for now, “insured” but the future, well, the future, doesn’t look that rosy. Sure I could always sell and if I’m lucky recover my deposit and something extra, than what? Compete with the Mainland Chinese money that need only 4 hours to devour 400+ condos? That’s during breakfast for them
    I think Glissy is a genius, as he is not always telling you what he really thinks, he lets you think for yourself, for a moment, and that’s what I like about his comments. I for one do not feel insulted or offended, not one bit, as I bought … like a shmuck, into Rennie’s marketing crap, of mountain views and vibrant nightlife, and amazing transit… BS.
    Instead I’ve got stuck in a tower with people that speak a different language than mine (English), language(s) that I do not understand, people that never say “Hello” when they climb in the elevator after me, that cook stinky foods and then ventilate on the hallway/ lobby, that party until 1AM, and throw their cigarette stubs on my fourth floor patio…
    So, in conclusion, I should thank Glissando for bringing this phenomenon up, and yes I am a shmuck. And by admitting that, I hope it will save future shmucks! from making the same mistake I did! Ta da

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    An interesting night tonight at the RAMP Forum.

    One of the organizers asked for a show of hands who there was from the City… no one. Too chancy, I guess.

    The most persisting question I heard during open mike, and afterwards, was in my own words, “how do we re-tool the planning process?”

  • Roger Kemble

    Frank @ #124

    Well, FWIW IMO Glissie is way out of line with his “Condos are for schmucks.” And his half baked apology is just a slithering way out.

    Bill Mc @ #125 yunno we, that is Frank D, Michael G and a few others who, for whatever reason choose anonymity, put in years of study to do what Lewis seems to thinq he can peddle off the seat of his pants.

    He condescendingly plays to the naïve.

    As for the charrette: don’t let him anywhere close. He takes over the entire talking and wont listen to any one. I know I’ve sat through his diatribes.

    I don’t resent him, I just thinq he is dead wrong. No towers outside downtown? He’s certain missed the boat on that one: Kits slope since the early ‘60’s, umpteen on the Central B’way corridor, HAHR (not DT) Marpole, Kerrisdale.

    I would appreciate him interfering less if he were to deal with local conditions rather than push whatever his flavour of the month happens to be.

    Good urban design has to do with handling a mixed building typology within its figure ground creatively: sensitive artistry at work.

    TBP’s FCS enclaves had it right until they became parking.

    Pity FCN and NEFC didn’t. Frank’s Paris figure ground got it absolutely right.

  • MB

    @ Everyman #126.

    Here’s one example about not needing a huge amount of private yard space to treat storm water runoff and create / renew habitat (with thanks to Bill Lee in the next post):

    http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/streets/design/documents/CrownStRpt013106.pdf

    Look at the illustrations. I note that the average boulevard is 15 feet wide, 30 feet if you include both sides of the street. Add them up city-wide and you’re in the thousands of acres. Using this otherwise underutilized space frees up private residential land to become something other than a monoculture of housing surrounded by inefficient open space in the setbacks.

    A way to counter the urban heat island effect is to accommodate tree roots in reinforced underground chambers filled with soil under the pavement. Too many urban trees suffer poor health when the engineers who designed the streets + sidewalks neglect to notice that trees have roots.

    You can achieve higher densities AND enhance environmental values using with smart growth principles. First and foremost, protect existing streams (and riparian habitat) and forests … if they haven’t already been obliterated. Daylight them if you have the opportunity in public parkland. Then, build compact neighbourhoods based on transit and walking and to appropriate densities, and use the horrendously inefficient single use road system in residential areas as indicated in the link, and plant appropriate species of trees along them and in backyards so that they will mature without much hindrance. This requires a lot of planning.

    But of course you’re probably the type who would mislabel smart growth as a ‘socialist conspiracy’ and sees mown lawns as primary habitat.

  • MB

    @ Bill McCreery #85.

    Thank you for these informative figures. Obviously adding soft costs and profit to my figures in #64 would boost the per square foot costs by 35% in your estimation. There may be room for lowering that figure (e.g. lowering the parking requirement), but it must be accounted for.

    However, I would add that your figures apply to building only two 1,800 sf row houses per standard lot. I propose it’s better to compete with the detached house market rather than offer less for almost the same price. In that regard, a basic, small ‘Ikea’ row house less than 1,800 sf on less land than a dulpex, and more than an average condo, could become a stepping stone to upsizing in a heated market.

    If I was a developer in the far future when row houses finally became legal, I would subdivide a standard lot into four as described in #64, not two. These would be in the 900-1,100 sf starter home range and sit on less land (only two would have backyards). I would do it in East Vancouver, not the west side until it’s proven there is a market for more expensive (and larger) row houses there.

    And I would admonish the city to give up some of the excessive land locked up in asphalt, especially if one or both senior governments finally does its research and concludes that transit is more vital to our cities and national energy security then its ever been given credit for in the past.

    The city has to trade with developers and residents in future; both have to compromise. Leased on-street parking would be a big hurdle for current-generation politicos and bureaucrats to cross if lower density residential areas are ever to increase densities in more ways than one (i.e. with lane housing). Most residents already use the front streets for parking (even when they already have a big yard and a garage), so what’s wrong with formalizing this arrangement and giving the Engineering dept. an additional revenue stream via a reasonable annual permit fee for designated spots for new row housing?

    My experience with contractors has been mixed, but I am always very impressed when you have a good one who can work with you to lower costs through innovation and creativity while protecting the design intent and structural quality.

    Moreover, it’s been mentioned more than once in the comments above that freehold row housing offers very attractive operating cost savings with less energy consumption and no maintenance fees — other than what the individual owners care to put in their own personal replacement reserve fund. These can be major selling points.

    I still think an East Vancouver row house could be had for several hundred thousand less than its detached neighbours on standard lots.

  • MB

    #131 correction”

    “…and giving the Engineering dept. an additional revenue stream via a reasonable annual permit fee for designated PARKING spots for new row housing?”

  • Julia

    MB #131…what leads you to believe that people will deliberately choose 900 square feet to raise a family when they can move 30 minutes away and have twice the space for the same money.

  • MB

    @ Julia

    People like me who tried commuting 110 km / day for two years and found paying more for a smaller house + postage stamp backyard in an older fixer upper closer to work in a family neighbourhood with all the amenities was much more humane, and left over an hour extra time each day to be with my family.

    My family lived in an 850 sf rented condo (with zero equity) for a decade prior to that.

    People looking for more than just a condo while remaining in their own Vancouver neighbourhood, but who can’t afford a $1.3 million detached house.

    People who would rather pay more to own the spatial equivalent to a rented laneway house, but who can’t afford the main house.

    People who are willing to sacrifice and scrimp to own ‘starting point’ equity (or ‘second tier’ equity, depending on the row house size + land area) with very reasonable if not ultra-low operating costs.

  • IanS

    @Julia #133,

    I made exactly that decision, ie. to purchase a condo downtown for my family, rather than buy a house further away. I like walking to work. I like not having to drive. I like living downtown. I like not having to mow lawns or deal with those kinds of issues.

    And, FWIW, it wasn’t a money issue.

  • IanS

    Oops.. I misread the question in my post #135. But I’ll let it stand as rebuttal to the “schmuck” posts earlier on.

    (Or, alternatively, as a vindication of the “schmuck” posts, I suppose.)

  • Bill McCreery

    @ MB 131.

    You have some interesting ideas. Makes me want to get out the sketch paper.

    We are talking “row” houses, ie: freehold. That means to subdivide you have to have a minimum lot frontage on an accessible right of way (a “street” or “highway” typically, a lane doesn’t count). So, unless Provincial law is changed, subdividing into 4 lots can’t be done.

    If one really wants 4 dwelling units / 33′ lot a better solution might be a quadraplex. Then all 4 would have private ‘front’ gardens at least. One big drawback with laneway houses is the dubious no man’s land shared mostly paved patio area between the big and little houses. Not sure where the parking will go.

    Just as in some of the overly densified spot rezonings such as the RIZE, Marine Gateway, Hornby and Drake, etc. there is a point of diminishing returns, where to much density reduces the quality of life, so perhaps densification possibilities should be evaluated carefully. One of my concerns is that Vancouver is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

  • brilliant

    Remember when condos were supposed to be the affordable entry to the housing market? I can’t believe posters actually think rowhouses ar really going to be the magic bullet that makes the city affordable or persuades the majority of buyers, particularly familues, that paying the same price for 1200 sq ft in the city is better than getting 3000 sq ft in South Surrey.

  • Mira

    Would you drop it?
    Shmucks… these really touched a few nerves.
    Read Glissando’s post again #109 but mostly the #123. (Michelle’s confession as a dweller in a tower condo is also interesting)
    What I get from his posts is that the condo market is a con, a joke played on the average middle-class family. I understand that for some the condo is the “entry level” but let me ask you $500,000… does this sound like an entry level to you? And for what? 700-900 sqft in a place where you don’t know your neighbors and feel as isolated as on a farm in Alaska.
    the prices these days are absolutely ridiculous, speculative in nature and if you enter today you better be prepared for a life of pain. That’s why some are shmucks and others are not.

    And Roger Kemble… #129 you write “Well, FWIW IMO Glissie is way out of line with his “Condos are for schmucks.” And his half baked apology is just a slithering way out.”
    LMAO!
    Coming from you, the paragon of honesty, good manners, impeccable language, and not a bad word to anyone… after trashing Lewis in post after post, on a personal level, oh please,sit down Roger, you make me laugh!
    MB and Bill McCreery i liked your comments.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    The row house will not be an entry level property, at least not around here (see 7 below).

    1. It is an important building type missing from our vocabulary.

    2. It can provide affordable suites for rent in the neighbourhood.

    3. One house can be divided into several suites. Each one of those suites could compete on a price point, and quality, with double-loaded apartments and tower suites.

    5. The form is very flexible, and once the genie is out of the bottle we can turn to another commodity here in our region that has been discounted of late: the quality of our designers.

    6. Builders will get into the mix as well.

    7. If we ever build TOD (transit oriented development) on the BC Electric ROW, urban houses or rows will provide a competitive advantage over the other residential building types.

    8. It has proven very successful as housing with supports in the U.S. I believe it can work as SRO replacement, and it will fit seamlessly in the historic areas.

  • Julia

    Ian #135 – where do your kids play? Where do you paint the old cabinet that you salvaged out of granny’s basement. Where is the hobby corner? Where is that tiny little patch of sanity called a garden. Where is the opportunity to stand in the middle of your street and talk to your neighbours.

    You don’t need to spend 1.3 million to do that. I did it in 1350 sq.ft, 35 minutes from downtown (by car) for $400,000

    by my math, that difference in price means I can pay off my mortgage a heck of a lot faster, retire sooner and enjoy getting there – all at the same time.

  • Roger Kemble

    Mira @ # 139

    “LMAO!
Coming from you, the paragon of honesty, good manners, impeccable language . . .

    Yes, of course Mira, you have a point. I never did subscribe to the livable city ranking: Vancouver started out somewhere very close to the top and now languishes somewhere near the bottom: and it’s my fault!

    And our double crusted perennials, have far more solutions than I could muster.

    I’ll give Lewis a rest for the time being, that is until he posts the video of his honour saving the city at last Monday evening’s meeting, where, heaven forefend, the city didn’t show up.

    And such a waste of good intentions: fee simple row houses, any kind of housing (mud huts on Wreck Beach) will continue to spiral out of our price range so long as, I have tried to get this through to the myriad prating thunder domes, off-shore currency hedging has us by the shorts.

    And speculators.

    One need only review videos of the feeding frenzies at OV or Marine Gateway sales jamborees to get my point. If you cannot take it you are forever in no-hope denial mode but then MB’s autistic prating is far less threatening isn’t it! (Park the family car on the other side of the street and, mira, affordable housing! The simplicity is beauty to behold: jeezless, I wish I’d thought of that!)

    There are one or two, behind the curtain, locals (sounds paranoid, doesn’t it) making a bundle out of this arrangement, so don’t expect thing to change before the blood bank has run dry!

    And really, who cares? The city’s ranking seems to be going down the toilet no matter what our resident green-grow-the-rushes-oh double crusted experts have to say.

    Why, by the time we are old enough to join Bula’s gossip, (and we have been intimidated into shutting up), we’re way too old to change our ways and if our little town of mountain views and sea breezes is sold out from under us, (and we’re well on the way) well, that’s life, isn’t it?

  • Chris Keam

    @Julia:

    I live in Mt Pleasant. Within minutes of my apartment are pottery and woodworking studios open to all, community gardens, playing fields where pet owners congregate and chat, a kids’ park that’s full on any sunny weekend with parents, kids, and skateboarders all coexisting peacefully. Also within a 15 minute bike ride – pools, rinks, library, shopping, pretty much every amenity I could desire. I find the pitfalls of urban living greatly overstated.

  • Chris Keam

    @Julia again:

    Realistically, you’d have to include the cost of transportation in your housing costs for a apples/apples comparison with Ian (although he’d have to include his footwear bill, since he walks to work). What’s the likelihood you are dropping about $10k a year for transportation costs and giving up the most precious commodity of all, time when you are (relatively) young and healthy to spend with friends and family. The dead-eyed, thousand yard stares of the long lines of car commuters I see when I ride to work or walk my kid to school (try the latter in the burbs!) tell me everything I need to know about the joys of suburban living.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    @ my own 140.2

    The second point in the list raises the issue of the size of the urban house. If it is 1800 s.f. it’s hard to imaging that it is going to have a rental.

    Even in today’s market, how long will it take for an additional 900 s.f. to pay for itself—and what do we consider affordable as rent?

    This would be either a ground level suite, likely with a door on the street, or a top level suite also with a door on the street and a few flights to climb.

    Adding a second story to get to what is called in Toronto a “stacked town”, what is the proforma for that? What is the additional cost of construction and how long will it take for the rental income to pay it back?

    On the additional cost of construction for the extra levels the land is already counted. What is the expected rental income? What is the going price out there for renting a town house, top or bottom, in the 1800 s.f. range?

    With a stacked town, the top house gets a generous terrace—say 800 s.f. with a room attached. The bottom unit gets the rear yard. Both have doors and addresses on the street. And, the parking is an open question. It could be two parking spaces off the lane, and one on the street.

    A final scenario is a single owning the house, living in the top or bottom floor and renting the rest. This may be a combination of one townhouse and one apartment for rent, so we can use the numbers already generated to sort that out.

    An important consideration comes from the side of the lender. The local banks and credit unions should develop a facility to help owners with mortgage-helper suites deal with issues that they may not be expert with like vacancy periods when there will be no income.

  • Everyman

    @MB 130
    And the city has built exactly how many Crown Streets in the 7 years since…? Why is that?

    And notice that it abutts Musqueam Park. Were it to be done in the centre of the city, little or no bird or bee habitat would be added.

    And van one rely on the city to provide appropriate trees? Anyone catch the story in yesterday’s Sun outlining how municipalities have sideswiped allergy sufferers by going for cloned male street trees?
    http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Cloned+male+trees+blamed+turning+urban+areas+sneezy/6328566/story.html

  • IanS

    @Julia #141:

    “where do your kids play?”

    Well, they’re teenagers now so who the heck knows. But when they were younger, they’d play at David Lam Park, Sunset Beach or Coopers Park, or sometime get involved in activities at the Roundhouse. No shortage of places to play.

    “Where do you paint the old cabinet that you salvaged out of granny’s basement.”

    I don’t. No interest in that.

    “Where is the hobby corner?”
    I have a small den where I pursue hobbies (photography, music etc.)

    “Where is that tiny little patch of sanity called a garden. ”

    I hate gardening.

    “Where is the opportunity to stand in the middle of your street and talk to your neighbours.”

    Every day, in the elevator, the pool, the hallways, the entrance, the common area garden…

    “You don’t need to spend 1.3 million to do that. I did it in 1350 sq.ft, 35 minutes from downtown (by car) for $400,000”

    Great. I’m happy for you.

    Where you lose me in the argument is your implied assertion that, because that worked for you, that will or should work for me. Do you really believe that, because you prefer something, everyone should prefer something?

    And my place didn’t cost $1.3 million, FWIW.

    “by my math, that difference in price means I can pay off my mortgage a heck of a lot faster, retire sooner and enjoy getting there – all at the same time.”

    Again, I’m happy for you.

    But so what?

    I’m not asserting that condos are for everyone. However, they suit me and my lifestyle.

  • Julia

    Chris K #144. My lease payment, gas and insurance comes to $7,600 a year. My car’s
    fuel efficiency is one of the best in the industry. A monthly 3 zone bus pass is $1,812. That does not say anything for taxi costs for times when transit is not appropriate or when there is more than one of us in the car. So, the cost difference is actually $5,788.

    I figure my little townhouse in town would be $750K so a lift of 350K ? My car expense does not even cover the interest on the difference.

    IanS #147 I am not trying to gloat or play or suggest I think condo living is terrible. I did it for 12 years.

    All I am suggesting is that the housing solutions being offered for Vancouver’s affordability problem are not that compelling.

  • MB

    @ Bill M. #137: “We are talking “row” houses, ie: freehold. That means to subdivide you have to have a minimum lot frontage on an accessible right of way (a “street” or “highway” typically, a lane doesn’t count). So, unless Provincial law is changed, subdividing into 4 lots can’t be done. ”

    That’s kinda my point. To Rize higher and higher to the challenge of offering less expensive housing in expensive single-family zoned areas may not be widely acceptable. So maybe offering more ground-oriented housing types will never get off the ground in adequate levels without changing the legislation.

    I have no problem with converting our completely utilitarian lanes in single-family areas into mews with a residential character. There is a plethora of examples of how this can be donwe all over the workld, and even outside of the 19th Century. If that takes a change in provincial law, then so be it. To me, that is only one of the trade offs the public sector has to offer when addressing the affordable housing issue. Blaming developers and nefarious international bankers is, well, only a blame game cop out.

    Again, the high values here are in the land, and barring a total collapse in Roger’s World of Finance (i.e. even larger than in 2008, which was the second deepest financial ‘correction’ in history), or a great earthquake, that is where the value will remain.

    Once again, in my opinion, addressing affordability is profoundly a land use issue in Vancouver before it is a design, finance or immigration issue.

  • Chris Keam

    Julia:

    You are comparing your costs for transit/car for where you live. Ian pays nada to get to work. And I agree with him, there is no one size fits all living arrangement that’s right for everyone and the Canadian ‘dream’ is more properly ‘dreams’ as we all have a different idea of acceptable trade-offs.

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →