Unfortuneately Urbanismo’s comments are true about most City of Vancouver planning processes. Specious, meaningless, dot-mocracy exercises with choices that often are known to be impossible to implement or are not actually choices at all. Occassionally a genuine set of questions is posed, even rarer does the public have any say in what the questions actually are. This is sad for a number of resons: it weakens the democratic process for starters. It’s also an unforgiveable waste of money given the bloated size of the Planning Department who plan and conduct the processes. Neighbourhood participation was a cornerstone of the Vision platform, but there seems to have been little change in way business is done. Sad really.

Density bonusing is done on a case by case basis, you can read the documents they are readily available online. Wether you beleive the density is deserving of the amentity will be another matter. W/O it though we’d have much less restoration work and daycares around.

Well Gassy, the developers are so rich they can buy hockey teams to play with in their spare time. Some might suggest political parties too, but let’s leave that one for another day.

The city, on the other hand, has deteriorating community infrastructure, a hiring freeze, tax increases and ginormous debt load.

That says something about the balance achieved by the density bonus plan….

Thanks for the replies to my inquiry. My apologies for the long post to follow…

I did a little searching myself and came up with a few items that may be of interest. As a layman, I welcome any experts to set me straight on any of these facts, I’m just putting them out there as a possible reason why the Density Bonus system doesn’t seem to be fulfilling its potential as Foo and Urbanismo and others suggest.

– The Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) appears to be doing its own review of the H. Density System. The HAC also just struck a committee Apr 27 to look at the Historic Area Height Review. (Strange timing given that the HAHR workshops and open houses were in April and May… wasn’t the HAC even consulted on this!?)

There was an independent report done in 2002 on the heritage density system (you can link to it from the city’s bonus density page). It doesn’t provide a system audit (the info wasn’t/isn’t kept apparently), but the review does compare NY, San Fran, Seattle versions to ours. There are key differences that ensure US cities get full value (ie. maximum amenities) for these transfers, and that the program remains active and integral to the local development market.

– The one that sticks out for me is that the US cities have DOWNZONED their core districts to create a greater demand and much higher value for the transferable density program. View Cone/Capacity Review and HAHR are proposing Vancouver do the opposite.

– In some cases, developers are REQUIRED to buy transferable density when they apply for additional density or zoning changes (ie. to build skyscrapers), forcing them to use the system.

– US cities have created and administer actual density banks (we just have an inventory) that create minimum values for density and always ensure an active market. It’s an added source of City revenue.

– US cities have much higher allowable density increases when transferred. Vancouver’s max increase is only 10% (in 2002), whereas in the US the threshold is much higher. Ie. NY allows a 24% FSR increase for density transferred from Historic Theatres (ie. the Pantages’ density would be worth almost 150% more than its current valuation). Now that’s an enlightened policy! This is, of course, also very developer-friendly, and so it is introduced only to offset downzoning.

– Of the 3 million feet of transferable density approved by Council since inception, only about half has been used up to date, despite just going through an historic building boom.

– In terms of value for the City, there is an estimate that our density in 2002 was selling at about 1/2 of market value per square foot, whereas in the US it is often sold at a premium because of the way their systems are set up. Currently, high restoration costs + low value on density means that Vancouver’s heritage owners (esp. speculators) have very little incentive to do anything other than wait until the building collapses and demo it.

– One of the 2002 report’s recommendations for Vancouver is: “For any future area-wide rezonings, require land owners to purchase transferable density to obtain approval for increased density.” We’ve just embarked on multiple area-wide rezoning processes, so why aren’t we even considering any of this?

I think it would be utterly foolish to rush ahead and chew up our view cones and raise Historic Area heights without AT LEAST ensuring we realize a premium value on the density that is gained. If City council is strapped for cash, they might want to ask why one of their cash cows hasn’t been delivering on its promises? View Cones and Historic Heights are by-laws based on vision and recognized as important milestones for Vancouver. I’m not sure I’d want to go down in history as being part of the Council that reversed these seminal by-laws and gave away the new density for a song.

GJG JJJ . . .

Gentlemen your in-depth research knowledge belies your naivé on-line construct.

GJG writes, “I’m not sure I’d want to go down in history as being part of the Council that reversed these seminal by-laws and gave away the new density for a song,” and tells me he is in the loop.

You describe a very complex and familiar planning process: statistical, data prone, technique, and numbers: a creeping labyrinth that demonstrably does not produce intended results: 20th century Vancouver planning at it’s worst.

Twenty-first planning, and admittedly there is little, replaces statistical with conceptual: interactive building relationships within spatial interstices. The most effective tools for this concept are the building envelope and build-to line.

The building envelope (no not moisture penetration) describes height limits as amenity (not distant profile), Sun, over looks, building inter relationships, volume.

The build-to line describes the manner in which buildings form spaces between, wrap around and define urban spaces and places: and street presence.

Use becomes a matter of compatiblity: mix is the key with an eye to noise transmission, air quality and economic viability . . .

Of course this requires a mind set quite different to one accustomed to statistics and rules: spatial imagination is the key . . .

As you infer, we need change. Then let’s get on with it!

Ojala y paz . . .

i would like to get back to the matter at hand…the view corridor study…or, as it is known, the view and CAPACITY study! I went to the first open house and strongly support the review, but have some serious concerns with the process.

If you haven’t been, you are invited to comment on the value of certain view corridors…but unfortunately, from STATIC viewpoints. This may have been understandable 20 years ago, but it is far too simplistic today. We should be assessing the value of views from a more DYNAMIC perspective.

I am willing to bet that even people who think all views must be cherished will agree that some of the view cones under consideration should be eliminated…while other view cones, especially at street ends, should be added or enhanced.

Sorry to keep straying on this tangent, Michael, but I think both you and Planning are falling for the absurd myth that Vancouver’s core has no building capacity left just because we have certain restrictions. Does San Francisco lack skyscraper developments in its down-zoned core? I don’t think so. And neither would we if we simply took a new approach.

The over-height Wall Centre got built didn’t it? Furthermore, about 40% of the transferable density approved by Council pre-2002 was used on that one project alone. Over 70% of the total was taken up by two big projects requiring zoning changes: Wall + Bentall. The system appears to work well in the US so it should work here, especially now that we’ve built out the capacity (we don’t even need to downzone).

But the window of opportunity won’t last much longer if we push ahead and change the by-laws without considering any other approach. Unless you can argue that San Fran is not developer-friendly and no skyscrapers get built in their downzoned core, maybe it’s worth a second thought? These aren’t my ideas (ie. easily dismissible), they are tried and true programs in world-class cities, and the research I cite was done by one of your professional peers.

The public will have its say on a case-by-case basis during the rezoning process if someone wants to infringe on the view cones or the heritage district heights. But forcing the public to consider everything all at once, and on multi-fronts in multi-zones, is expecting way too much, that is, if you really truly want to inform the public and value their input. Most commentators above seem to think this is all just a sham and so likely won’t even show up to have their say – maybe they are right not to bother?

To add a statistical note to the comment about there being no children living in False Creek North, the 2006 Census data for Census Tract 59.03 (which is effectively False Creek North) can be downloaded from the Statistics Canada website. It shows 1,060 children under 15 living there, 525 of them aged under 5. This is a 63% increase from 2001, when there were 300 children. The total population increased by 47% (from 7,200 to 10,570) so the percentage of children grew by more than the overall population increase. There were 180 children aged 5-9 in 2001, and 235 aged 10-14 in 2006. These numbers suggest that not only are families having children and staying in the neighbourhood, but families with young children are also moving into the area.

Oh, PlanningData, I pity all those poor kids who have to sleep on the couch in their parents’ shoebox! They must be ghosts like me, or else very well behaved, since they are so seldom seen or heard.

But just because a kid is claimed as a dependent by a parent who has a mailing address in Yaletown doesn’t necessarily mean that the little tyke actually lives there. As a divorced parent, I find that both Stats and Rev Can have serious gaps in accounting for amicable joint custodies, weekender arrangements, second marriages, non-traditional families, etc. that are often the case these days (and maybe more so in Yaletown than other places?). Only one parent can claim a dependent, so tax time expedience may skew these numbers quite a bit. It’s damn hard to imagine a neighbourhood of 1000 kids that never go out and play on the nearest playground. How do the stats explain this?

Hmmn, I guess that reinforces Urbanismo’s point about the shortcomings of statistical absolutism.

And thanks for the link, Urbanismo, hadn’t heard that in a while. I took a long weekend away rather than “end up drunk on Robson Street” acting even more foolish than usual in public. I still think you are missing my point – If there’s a good way to leverage more amenities like affordable housing (9.5 on your scale of importance), then why ignore it? – but I don’t disagree with yours or MG’s main points, despite my caterwauling. In fact, none of what any of us is saying excludes or disproves the others’ points; they can all coexist for the good of better planning.

On another side note: the city of Austin, Texas got so sick of the recent condo tower boom and its homogenizing effect on architecture and commerce in their downtown that they developed a campaign to “Keep Austin Weird”. Maybe Vancouver needs to adopt a similar mindset?

There is far too much uncorroborated self-serving dissembling and cheerleading coming out of the planning department. Given evidence on the ground it is a luxury the city can no longer afford.

Time to disband the Vancouver Planning department.

Are you listening Mr. Mayor and Council?

Indeed Mr. Clarity,

That is my point. There is not ” a significant number of families in the area”

Why the pretence?

PPS . . . I acknowledge planners don’t have clout to match that of Vancouver’s developers: developers call the shots.

All the more reason to face reality. VPD is a luxury the city can no longer afford . . . QED