Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Plan for 10,000 more in Commercial Drive ‘hood gets cautious approval from residents for now

June 28th, 2016 · 46 Comments

It’s been one long haul, but finally city planners have come up with the draft for a Grandview-Woodland plan. (They presented it to the citizens’ assembly Saturday night, after which several attendees went for beer. This planning thing is not for amateurs.)

Here is the city’s summary of the plan, which envisions about 7,000 new housing units, 9,500 new residents in the next 25 years, a redevelopment of the Safeway site at Commercial/Broadway to a plaza with a couple of 24-storey towers on the east side and other office/condo/rental buildings on other sides, an enhanced little commercial strip on Dundas, taller buildings on East Hastings in the valley around Clark, with lower buildings on Hastings where the street rises, plus much more.

Unfortunately, the city doesn’t seem to have posted yet the excellent PowerPoint presentation that planner Andrew Pask showed the assembly Saturday (and which I’ve also seen), which has sketch-ups showing what the planners’ ideas are for the Safeway site, the Boffo Kettle site, the Hastings Street corridor and more. Just has a lot more visual detail. It’s supposed to be going up soon.

People I talked to yesterday (Dorothy Barkley of GWAC, Eileen Mosca, longest-serving Drive advocate I know, Barbara Cameron of No Tower Coalition) sounded generally favourable, although no one has had time to absorb all the details yet in the 250-page report. (My story, condensing all their comments, along with assistant planning director Kent Munro’s, into a tiny wad of Kleenex, here.) There are some concerns, of course, like the plans for 18-storey buildings at Clark and Hastings. As well, I saw Kyle MacDonald tweeting yesterday about the low densities still on Nanaimo.

I’ll wait to see how it all evolves. But at least no instant outrage, which is something these days.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Kyle MacDonald

    It’s a great start ! Let’s start putting it into action !!

  • Alex2000

    Great article at CBC about this. Its an interview with.. well Kyle MacDonald. Who I see has commented, but I wish would expand on the points he made so well in the CBC interview. He really nails a lot of great points.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/grandview-woodland-plan-density-affordability-1.3656511

    To me, over 25 years, the number of new units sound sort of pathetic, and the articles about this sort of rah-rah-ish (having a “look at the people come together” vibe). Glad the CBC ran the story sort of calling B.S. on this take. If the NIMBY’s are not unhappy and screaming, I am worried! Why don’t the headlines read: “Local Nimby’s axe 10,000 (or whatever) units of desperately needed housing” or “Nimby’s to middle class: Drop dead” etc… So many articles carrying water for the anti-growth crowd.

    I also wonder what the age make-up of the people who turn out the these community planning meeting. My instinct is to say mostly people 60+.. am I wrong? People with lots of time on their hands. People who frankly won’t be alive in 25 years anyway to see what their intransigence has wrought.

    Who is at these meetings to speak out for the people who would like to move to the city or region?! Who is there to speak out for the employers who would like to open an office in the region but can’t because their prospective employees can’t afford to live here?

    Thank god for the growing YIMBY movement. Too bad it is 10 or 20 years too late.

    P.s. go read that CBC interview.

  • Alex2000

    hmm.. I liked it better when you were a bit more of a flamethrower (CBC article). Don’t go soft now… 🙂

    P.S.. 25 years is a Long time. You read about these new units, and then you realize you are talking about 2040. We are in crisis mode *now*. And *this* is the Kumbaya solution? Well great…

    P.P.S: I loved this line of yours: “Parking is the new long distance.In ten years no one will care about it.”

  • jenables

    I’ll just refer to you as the “I’d like to live where all those low income people are currently taking up space”crowd. You can pretend it’s all old people, or throw out a “biiiigot” or two, but it’s attitudes like yours, conveniently lined up with the deep pocketed developers, who have turned what was a nice city for all kinds of people to live in into an ever gentrifying dutch oven echo chamber of supply and demand, density and “it’s really DESIRABLE here “. Please.

    Can you tell me why a neighborhood should prioritize people who might want to live there over the people who currently do? Can you tell me why you think new housing that displaces people who won’t be able to afford to live anywhere else makes a neighborhood more affordable? Can you give me ONE example of where a whole bunch of gentrification made a neighborhood cheaper? This is a blog to discuss civic issues and what is ACTUALLY going on in the city,not a place to regurgitate Bob Rennie’s bilge, Kyle’s obvious friend.

    PS – I’m finding it VERY strange how Kyle is all of a sudden absolutely everywhere, desperately pleading the developer’s case to everyone… Just as people are waking up to what has really been going on. Kyle is also a homeowner who knows that increased density and upzoning will raise his land values. I’m speaking up for all the low income people renting apartments here who will be the first to lose their homes and neighbourhood when the city allows more density to be built where they are currently living. I’m calling out this bullshit for what it actually is – socio economic cleansing so that the fat cats who have the provincial and municipal governments in their back pocket can make MOAR money off of land that is comparatively cheaper. To me, that’s who you are speaking up for. BIte me, shills.

  • maya

    There needs to be places for new residents in our neighbourhoods and the fact is new people are moving here all the time putting pressure on housing stock. Just because we were lucky enough to get in years ago when things weren’t quite so crazy doesn’t mean we can close the door on new development. I don’t think that means prioritizing new over old. When our property values go up so do our taxes. This is an expensive city for all of us, including home owners.

  • A Taxpayer

    While I do have sympathy for anyone who finds their lives disrupted by change, renters really can not expect to have the same rights as owners when they do not carry the same risks and responsibilities. You focus on the profit that developers will make but ignore the vendors where the sale of real estate might be needed to fund retirement or more supportive housing. You resent lack of control over property you rent. How do you think people feel about the lack of control over property they own?

    Given the restrictions that landlords face, it should come as no surprise that many people would prefer to leave their unit empty than rent it out and be subject to the limitations imposed by regulation. Want more rental housing? Then don’t keep making investment in rental properties less and less attractive under the guise of protecting tenants’ rights.

  • jenables

    I’m talking about the city raising densities and forcing the issue, Taxpayer. There are lots of property owners here who don’t really want to sell their buildings because they are comfortable collecting the rental income but when the city changes what can be built they are offered obscene amounts of money and pressured to sell constantly.

    I’m not saying the property owner doesn’t have the right to do what they want, I’m saying that the housing that many people are living in here is actually affordable, which is in short order, and it’s going to disappear.

  • jenables

    When long – time low income residents lose the only homes they can afford, I’d say yes, you are prioritizing new over old. See my response to taxpayer. I never said to close the door, but did you happen to notice what happened to Cambie street when they rezoned big swathes of land there? I mean, they want to add 10,000 more people and 0 new parks. Oh, but 5 cement plazas. I get that you own a home and this doesn’t affect you very much.

  • jenables

    Also, Kyle, if you have four vehicles on the street that you don’t use, if they are not insured then they will be towed by the city.

  • VancouverMan

    18 story buildings at Clarke and Hastings is insane. It’s industrial land and on the north side of Hastings Street – critical zoning given it’s location next to the port lands. Vancouver is a port city beyond being a condo city. The pressure that that zoning will put onto industrial lands will be incredible. Not to mention the light industrial to the south and the view blocking to the east.

  • jenables

    And i see from your previous comments that you live in Douglas Park. Well, no skin off your nose! That makes your closing the door on new development comment into comedy, really. I live in an already dense neighborhood filled with a wide diversity of people renting, who are at risk of being displaced. You live in an empty shell of a neighborhood that isn’t dense at all. Tell me more about places for new residents, please.

  • Alex2000

    Just look at San Francisco to see what not building to meet demand looks like. It doesn’t stop people from moving to a desirable location. It just drives rents and prices out sky high.

    Today’s new building or tower is tomorrows 20 or 30 year old value-for-money rental/property. By stopping denser construction you are not going to make newcomers go away, or somehow freezing time. All you are doing is sticking your head in the sand and hoping the issue goes away. And what you end up with is San Francisco, where they basically didn’t build anything from the late 70’s until a couple years ago.

    The “YIMBY movement” basically started in San Fran a few years ago and has spread.

    I won’t go on and on about it, instead I will link to a couple of things:

    An informative article about the “Bay Area Renters Federation” (a YIMBY group) in the New York Times here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/business/economy/san-francisco-housing-tech-boom-sf-barf.html

    A good e-book by Matthew Yglesias, a write for Vox and formerly of Slate: Called: “The rent is too damn high”.

    https://www.amazon.ca/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO

    Or if you don’t want to read the whole book, there is a short review and summery at the Atlantic magazine:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-rent-really-is-too-damn-high/254718/

  • Alex2000

    Hey thanks a good point. In fact I am a blue collar worker myself. In fact, I work in the transportation sector and the busier the port is the busier I am at work.

    Too bad there won’t be any place for fellow blue collar guys like myself to live near the port when Grandview-Woodland inevitably turns into a “only multi-millionaires” only club thanks to a lack of density.

  • VancouverMan

    Density doesn’t equal or guarantee affordability. If the City is serious about affordability, density would be directly tied to affordability by requiring inclusive zoning. Mandating that 10-20% of units in a building were available at rents people in the neighbourhood could afford – rather that the City’s definition of ‘affordable’ at $1200 for a studio apartment. Density that creates market housing will create … market housing. Vancouver’s market isn’t affordable. And lack of supply is not the reason behind it.

  • jenables

    You are talking about a neighborhood where 65% of the population rents and their median income is $28,000. Homeowners median income is $56,000. Where are the millionaires?

  • jenables

    Sorry Maya, i didn’t mean to scare you off. This issue happens to be near and dear to my heart, as it affects me very directly.

  • jenables

    What would grew really great is if you could answer some of the questions i asked above. I’ll copy them below for you:

    Can you tell me why a neighborhood should prioritize people who might want to live there over the people who currently do? Can you tell me why you think new housing that displaces people who won’t be able to afford to live anywhere else makes a neighborhood more affordable? Can you give me ONE example of where a whole bunch of gentrification made a neighborhood cheaper?

  • Alex2000

    In the end market forces will do it for them.
    This isn’t North Korea. People can move about. Even in China, where the government actually tells people that they are not allowed to move from their home district, people move illegally to more desirable cities inside china anyway. Vancouver is one of the most desirable places to live not only in Canada, but the world. Vancouver is facing the same forces that are facing cities all around North America. People want to live in it. Some people that already live in it, want to pull up the drawbridge and say “sorry we are full”. San Francisco is the extreme example of that. Creating elaborate measures to allow locals to prevent *any* new construction. No matter now minor.

    It is your rhetoric, but put into extreme practice for 30 years. And it has exploded in their face.

    There are tons of articles about this, so I won’t go over the whole history. Just google it.

    But it is the history of the future of Vancouver if we don’t keep building.

    Are you telling me that those single family houses within 5 to 10 minutes walk from the Skytrain station aren’t already worth north of 1.5 million each?

    Build more rental apartment buildings, Build more condo towers with units for low income ppl. Prevent condo corporations from banning long term rental of units.

  • Kenji

    How about lack of supply not being the only reason behind the affordability crisis…since there is zero logic in suggesting that inventory and price are unrelated.

  • Alex2000

    From July 3rd’s New York Times article about Bolder Colorado:

    “And when zoning laws get out of hand, economists say, the damage to the American economy and society can be profound. Studies have shown that laws aimed at things like “maintaining neighborhood character” or limiting how many unrelated people can live together in the same house contribute to racial segregation and deeper class disparities. They also exacerbate inequality by restricting the housing supply in places where demand is greatest.”

    Interesting read. Boulder, like a lot of desirable places is deal with the same issues as Vancouver.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-sentiment-reflected-in-zoning-laws-thwarts-equality.html

  • Kirk

    I keep hearing that 1,000,000 people are moving here. Does anyone have that report? We’re spending so much money and revamping all our zoning based on that projection. It’d had better be very, very well researched and not just some willy-nilly flippant opinion.

    And, what kind of people are these 1,000,000 people. In San Fran or Seattle, they’re expecting more young tech workers, and they are building with those people in mind. Who are we expecting? Somebody have a link to that report?

  • jenables

    Recently, children’s hospital was hiring an anesthesiologist. This is a very important job with immense responsibility; it pays quite well. They had a hell of a time finding someone who wanted to move here under the current circumstances.

    I guess what you are saying is, since Vancouver is SO desirable (dipping your head into the Dutch oven there) it simply doesn’t matter if the local wages don’t support the cost of living, as long as real estate is being sold.

    If your logic (which has the weight of many well – monied interests behind it) was even REMOTELY correct, denser cities would be affordable and yet all the most dense, developed cities are also the most expensive. The premise behind your argument is false. All it does is put people in smaller boxes. That is also why you didn’t answer a single one of my questions.

  • jenables

    Every city building smart growth is being told that, all over the world…

  • Alex2000

    Q1)”Can you tell me why a neighborhood should prioritize people who might want to live there over the people who currently do?”

    As I said. This isn’t North Korea. We are a free market and a free country. People will move where they want.

    q2)”Can you tell me why you think new housing that displaces people who won’t be able to afford to live anywhere else makes a neighborhood more affordable? ”
    This article Ms. Bula posted is about the long view…. Over 25 years. It is how the city will look in 2040 and how to accommodate the city growth over that period.
    As I tried to say, your route, the San Francisco route, the route that has been tried and tried again, has never won. It gets overwhelmed in the end.

    That’s why there is a growing #YIMBY movement in North America. Because we need a different way out of the fix we are going to be in. Not the one that has tried and failed everywhere else.

    In 2040 do you really think the city, this area will look the same as it is now. That’s the big picture.

    In the meantime the city should prevent Stratas from banning owners from renting our their units. That will get more rental supply on the market.

    q3) Can you give me ONE example of where a whole bunch of gentrification made a neighborhood cheaper?

    Well if you mean, A case were a lot have people have moved to a new city and the housing market didn’t go crazy, Texas is usually cited as an example because of a boomming economy, tons of new arrivals, and its lack of zoning. Texas is growing very fast. Yet housing costs hover around the national average. Specifically Houston and Austin. Now in the last 2 or 3 years Austin has seen a HUGE jump in population. It is really booming. It is seen as a very hip place to live. Big tech boom. Those not going to San Fran and the silicon valley go to Austin. Now in the year the average cost of a house went up by 5%. Average house cost ~255k. Locals are calling it a bubble. haha

  • Kirk

    In the meantime the city should prevent Stratas from banning owners from renting our their units. That will get more rental supply on the market.

    As a condo owner, I don’t like this one. We specifically made sure we bought into a building with limited rentals. There’s a lot of buildings in Vancouver that are dominated by investors who rent out condo units. Many of them down vote any sort of long term (necessary!) maintenance. They never want fees to go up because they just want to rent it out and flip without contributing to the contingency fund.

    If the City passes a law that all stratas have to allow unlimited rentals. Then they should also pass a law saying all house owners must rent out their basements.

    As for Austin, although downtown is densifying, it sounds like they’re also building tons of new suburban single-family houses and more freeways. So, sprawl could be a large factor in keeping house costs low. Plus, their housing prices are probably still tied to local incomes, unlike here in Vancouver.

  • Kirk

    Who are all these people? Seattle’s tech industry is starving for knowledge workers and is thus recruiting from all over the globe. Sounds like the same for Austin.

    Who’s recruiting in Vancouver? Where will the jobs be? There must be some projections out there. Maybe we’ll have the Port and tourism, and nothing else? Are we just getting 1,000,000 wealthy Chinese? Should I get my kids to skip higher education and go into Lamborghini sales?

  • A Taxpayer

    I think you are off base in suggesting Strata’s be prohibited from restricting rentals. This is clearly an infringement on the rights of the strata owners to democratically choose how they want to organize their strata. While wanting to increase the availability of rental units may be a valid objective, it doesn’t trump the valid reasons why owners may vote to restrict rentals.

  • Kenji

    Maybe they are dense because there is demand to move to those cities, a demand that keeps prices high because every unit still gets bought, so far anyway.

    I’m wondering why you blame the politicians. Shouldn’t you be blaming people, like me, who bought when they could? Why are these evil people daring to sell to the highest bidder? Don’t they feel their civic duty to refuse to inflate prices.

  • Jeff Leigh

    Metro Van Regional Growth Strategy:

    http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/RGSAdoptedbyGVRDBoard.pdf

    If you doubt the numbers, think about the number of people that moved to the region from 1986 onwards, and consider that the growth projection is for a similar number of new residents each year, which is a constantly shrinking percentage increase.

    More info on the Metro Van site

    http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/metro-vancouver-2040/resources/Pages/default.aspx

  • jenables

    Gordon Campbell said we could all just move to Revelstoke, remember? Politicians, in case you have forgotten, are supposed to be serving the best interests of the people they represent. Ours just serve whoever gives them $$$, and in this case both the provincial and municipal governments paved the way for this to happen. A better question is, why are you defending them? And do you think the actual population of the city of Vancouver is growing?

  • jenables

    I’ve heard all your bafflegab, Alex. Many, many times. Yada yada drawbridge, yada yada hyperbole, yada yada desirable. Funny how you equate governments listening to their constituents with north Korea. Does that tell you anything?

    Has Vancouver not built anything over the last 30 years?

  • Kirk

    Thanks Jeff. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have much info on where the projection comes from. It’s like claiming the price of gold is going to $2000 and we should all jump into junior mining stocks. But, then it doesn’t say why, other than that’s recent growth has been good.

    The Hong Kong handover wave started after Expo and the big Chinese immigration wave happened since. Will the next 1,000,000 continue to come from China?

    I look at cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Detroit, Fort McMurray. And, I can point to why their populations are growing or shrinking. And, my guess is that those cities plan housing mix, industrial zones, and schools with those factors in mind.

    But, Vancouver? Wealthy Chinese immigration has obviously been a factor. Will our growth continue to come from there? If so, what kinds of housing should we build? Will these people not need jobs, meaning we don’t have to reserve so much industrial space? Will they need schools?

  • Kenji

    I’m “defending” reality in which desirable cities attract residents. What do you expect the politicians to do, turn this place into Detroit?

    I am saying, as a community, there needs to be political will to suppress prices. Target the homeowner. I certainly feel that I should treat land as a precious natural resource, more akin to air and water than as a straight investment like Apple stock. I also suspect that I am pretty much in the tiny minority who gives a shit about that.

    As for “is Vancouver growing,” until my longed-for universal mandatory vasectomy scheme catches on worldwide, the only logical answer is yes, obviously. In the sense of Metro Van. Van itself is turning into a gated community for the ultra rich.

  • jenables

    I did specify the city of Vancouver. So, Vancouver is for the wealthy.,just like Vancity said. Tell that to my neighborhood… oh wait, that’s what you are already doing.

    The politicians set the stage for this, not doing so would not have turned this place into Detroit. I’ve been questioning the value of foreign investment for a long long time, kenji.

  • Kenji

    Cripes.

    I’m not saying that I *want* Vancouver to be a gated community for the rich. I am saying that it clearly *IS* turning into a gated community for the rich.

    To be even clearer, I do not support that. Nor do I support the earth crashing into the sun, or the abolition of motherhood.

    The affordability issue should generate debate and action on solutions. Ideas that seem to come up over and over include:

    – More construction thus more supply
    – Very high taxation of empty properties
    – Subsidized rental direct to users
    – Subsidized housing construction
    – Below market co-ops
    – Restrictive covenants to limit sales to investor/flippers
    – Rent control

    These have their pros and cons.

    You seem to be advocating:

    – Blaming the current administration for Expo 86 and other measures to invite the world to invest here
    – Wishing that there be no renovation/new construction

    I don’t get it, I guess.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    The Strata Property Act is provincial legislation. A city by law cannot override it.

  • Lysenko’s Nemesis

    Those reports are so old now. It’s a bit like guessing what the weather will be like. Those massive studies are just exercises in wishful thinking, at best.

    In the Metro planning one they talk about the Semiahmoo Municipal Town Centre. This was all conceived around ten years ago, before the crash of 2008. A big plan was commissioned and plans drawn up but absolutely nothing has been built. Nothing. Meanwhile Grandview Heights isn’t on the map and it’s exploding with growth.

    The latest Surrey has on the big plan for Semiahmoo is results of yet another study in 2012. Still, nothing has changed.

    http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/1344.aspx

    It’s all crystal ball stuff.

  • Vanreal

    Jenables. You can’t stop progress it’s impossible. Grandview is a desirable area close to downtown and it will continue to gentrify. Nothing you can do about it

  • jenables

    Ok, vanreal (estate). How very progressive of you. Doesn’t mean there won’t be a fight, however.

  • jenables

    Yeesh kenji, you don’t need to resort to hyperbole. Again, there is such a thing as NOT mass rezoning a neighborhood. Don’t worry, condos are still being built, all around me. I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with them doing it all at once which will have extreme ramifications for the people living here. I’ve seen the mayor express more concern over his “green” brand being harmed than I’ve ever seen him show for locals gentrified out of their homes. It would appear he cares a lot more about the image this city is protecting than the people who live in it. The current administration is by no means blameless.

  • Vanreal

    You can fight all you want. It will change nothing. It’s already too late. Gentrification is upon us. I’m just stating a fact.

  • jenables

    Your facts sound an awful lot like trolling.

  • Kirk

    I loved Expo. And, I loved the Olympics. That said, I think it was a financial failure in the sense that the main reason for hosting these events is for the economic spin-offs. But, I don’t think we really got any. The world didn’t come here to start up new businesses and industries and add thousands of jobs. Instead, they just bought up property and resold our land back to us for a profit. Real estate flipping isn’t economically sustainable since it relies on a pyramid, as we are proving to ourselves. I suppose that’s why after Expo, we had to hold the Olympics. Maybe in 20 years, we can host something else. Ironic how No-Fun-City’s economy relies on it hosting parties.

  • Kenji

    No, they’re not.

    And yes, the ramifications are real, and realer for some (the evicted) than for others (the ones making the decisions).

  • Kenji

    That’s true, but in Canada’s economy, what is it that drives the economy? The key industry is real estate followed by manufacturing and mining. Appealing to real estate investors appears to be something we may have to do in order to get the dollars that, lest we forget, pay for it all the stuff.

    Alternatively/additionally we could, with our votes, try to get out of the “free trade” agreements that send Canadian manufacturing jobs overseas and limit our not-sooper-skilled people to jobs in the McService industry.

    Yeah, and chocolate with no calories too.

    I’m not supporting renoviction, at all. I don’t think it is a necessary integrated aspect of getting that filthy foreign lucre. It could be that there is so much demand here that builders, faced with obligations to either build or surrender in taxes the capacity to build accommodations for the people being threatened with displacement.

  • Kenji

    Trolling on the internet….! Hey how about real life trolling, can you organize another Bulabeernite?