[204]

One of the simplest ways of "making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable" is to have the VPD start doing their jobs. The laws that they are mandated to enforce are not to be "picked and chosen". What happened to having constables on patrol? I'm very glad to see these fine officers at Starbucks in Yaletown, but it might also be to have them walking the beat in other more sensitive areas of the city.

[Hed Kandi]

6 story wood buildings

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090721/documents/p3.pdf



I for one hope the city decline's this proposal.

I have lived in wood built condo's and have had nothing but headaches with them. As the buildings age, they tend to creek and slant. They are prone to excessive noise from neighbors as well as those living above and below you. Not to mention the fire hazard risk they pose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mv5qg2-MLs


They city would be extremely naive and foolish to pass this amendment.

[s211]

They city would be extremely naive and foolish to pass this amendment.

But with a naive nutbar like Gregor in control, expect foolishness.

[SFUVancouver]

Property Report
Living above the store

FRANCES BULA

VANCOUVER — Special to The Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2009 12:00AM EST Last updated on Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009 3:01AM EST

Paul Buck has spectacular views of downtown Vancouver from the two glass walls of his condo, which wow everyone who walks in.

But what really impressed one of Mr. Buck's friends, in from a town near the Yukon border, is that he lives over a giant Home Depot.

"He was visiting from Dease Lake and he was beside himself that I was living right next to a hardware store," says Mr. Buck, the CFO at a biotechnology company that is a convenient two blocks from his condo.

Mr. Buck also lives over a major grocery store, a Winners, a sushi restaurant, a cellphone shop, and a Starbucks, in a complex that has broken new barriers when it comes to an increasingly popular development trend: the mixed-used project.

The Rise is attracting attention and even awards from across North America for its combination of big-box stores on the bottom, with condos and townhouses clustered around an enclosed garden on the top.

But while the combination of uses is unusual, the underlying concept is not.

Cities are aiming to maximize their land use and build greener and denser. At the same time, certain developers have discovered the joy of multiple revenue streams as a niche market of tenants and buyers are drawn to hybrid life. Mixed-use projects have become not only more prevalent but are incorporating wider ranges of uses with each passing year.

In Vancouver, the Shaw Tower has divided a tower on the waterfront edge of the central business district with Triple A office space on the bottom and high-end condos on top. The city's Woodward's project near the Downtown Eastside combines condos, social housing, space for non-profits and city offices, a grocery store, a drugstore and Simon Fraser University's School for the Contemporary Arts, with its multitude of performance spaces.

On Georgia Street, the Shangri-La incorporates a hotel, restaurant, spa, sculpture gallery and condos. Near GM Place, Concord Pacific has four residential towers over a Costco outlet.

In Toronto, the Distillery District east of downtown has mixed 1,500 units of condos with art galleries, offices, restaurants, a theatre and space for non-profit operations. For the World on Yonge, currently being planned in Markham to the north, the drawing board at Liberty Development includes four residential towers, a large shopping complex with an interior plaza, and an office building. In Yorkville, Quadrangle Architects created a complex at 155 Cumberland that combines high-end retail, offices and expensive apartments.

Fans of mixed-use developments say this is a case of cities returning to the way they used to be.

"Zoning was very much a post-war phenomenon when there was a move to separate different uses," says architect Les Klein, whose firm, Quadrangle, is also working on mixed-use projects in Ontario's Kitchener and Niagara-on-the-Lake. "What we're really trying to do is return to a mixed-use society, which also makes cities more green. It's planning catching up with reality."

But even enthusiasts such as Mr. Klein say that challenges come with building mixed-use projects. Often developers dive into them when they know how to do only one part well - the offices, the condos or the retail - but they add on the others, thinking they'll be easy gravy. It turns out they aren't.

Some uses just don't work together, with restaurants being especially problematic because of their smells, waste and noise issues.

Or developers don't think about timing problems and they end up with different groups of users clashing as one tries to leave while the other is arriving.

What does work best is when developers create multiple uses that appeal to a similar demographic.

Both Matthew Rosenblatt at Cityscape Developments, which is part owner of the Distillery District, and Marco Filice at Liberty say they aim to create complexes where each part - shopping, office or residential - draws people from the same general niche.

"We market to the same demographic generally," Mr. Rosenblatt said. So the offices, condos and shops at the Distillery District work together to attract people who like an urban, arty environment.

"We wouldn't entertain the idea of having a nightclub there with 18-year-olds lining up," says his partner, David Jackson.

Mr. Filice said his company aims to create a critical mass of residents who are interested in the kind of retail or office services integrated in the complex. For that reason, he structures his projects so that two-thirds of the space goes to residential, one-third to retail and office.

"It's basically a life-cycle approach - we have a captive audience for them." It's not that different, he thinks, from the area he grew up in near St. Clair and Bathurst, where people lived over shops on the ground floor and doctors' offices on the second floor.

In spite of that, many Torontonians, such as Mr. Klein and Mr. Jackson, are skeptical about Vancouver's radical experiments in putting people on top of giant stores.

"The jury is very much out on the idea of residential on top of big box, like we're seeing in Vancouver," Mr. Klein says.

But Vancouver's planning director, Brent Toderian, said he believes the Rise is a wonderful new example of mixed use. It's one that the city went out of its way to encourage.

The developers of the Rise say it's proven to be a good experiment for their company. "We had to take a bit of a leap of faith," says James Patillo, senior vice-president of Grosvenor Americas.

It wasn't the easiest project. The banks don't always understand mixed-use projects, he acknowledged. And the designers had to come up with an internal loading system for the building underground, so that residents wouldn't be annoyed by constant deliveries or garbage pickup.

Now, he says, they're achieving good rents - about $2.25 a square foot, comparable with anything in the area - and they have very low turnover.

"Some might say they don't like the retail below, but I think the acceptance grows and grows," Mr. Patillo said. "We've made a strategic shift to retail and residential. We think it's here to stay."

Mr. Buck agrees. He doesn't care about the retail below except that it's handy for him. He shops at all of the stores in his building. What matters most is that he lives across the street from his work, he's a block from the subway line to the airport, and it's a cool space.

Living over the store isn't so bad.

THE CHALLENGES OF MIXED USE

Some projects work better with separation

"There is a sense among condo owners that there are strangers in their territory if they aren't separated from the offices users," says Les Klein, Quadrangle Architects.

Some projects work better without much separation

"When you separate your users too much, you lose the opportunity for the synergies. Residents want to be in the mix they bought into," says David Jackson, Cityscape Developments.

Some combinations just don't work no matter what

"Most pure office-type tenants would not want to be in a building with cooking smells, a lot of traffic or after-hours groups," says Rob Armstrong, managing director, Avison Young Toronto.

They're not for every developer

"You don't see a lot of mixed-use projects because most companies are capitalized to do their single-purpose specialty," says Matthew Rosenblatt, Cityscape Developments.

You might need a partner

"Most developers specialize in one area and then they add the other component. But you can end up with something - retail or office or condos - that feels like it's left over if you don't work with a partner who knows that area," says Mr. Klein.

Source (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/living-above-the-store/article1357463/)

[sacrifice333]

This is very cool from Square Space...

LaneFab.com/ (http://www.lanefab.com/)

[jlousa]

Latest from the COV on it's green plans. Pretty big goals, let's see how implementation goes. I'm too tired to take out the details so I'm just going to link to the documents.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100204/documents/penv3.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100204/documents/penv4.pdf

[WBC]

Port authority is buying industrial land to preseve it from the condo developers. Nice move.

http://tinyurl.com/yfajse2

[vanman]

^ I read that the other day it's what needs to be done for sure.

[Ronnie Yau]

I love Vancouver!
--Ronnie

[jlousa]

As per the laneway implementation policy, staff have reviewed laneway housing after receiving 100 applications. Here are some of the more interesting tidbits.
They are already up to 173 applications but the report is focused on the first 100 which makes the numbers easy to work with.

100 applications after 9 months (~11/month)
39 on pre-existing houses
61 on new construction
During the same time the city processed 506 applications, so one in 8 new sfh are having laneway houses built.
The distribution of laneway houses is fairly even between the east and west side.
Costs are higher then anticipated, at $180K on an pre-existing house, and about $125K on new construction. Much cheaper due to cost savings of doing both at the same time.

Anyways the city seems fairly happy and there will only be a few small tweaks and they will report back at a later day as things progress.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20101021/documents/csbu3-MonitoringofLanewayHousingImplementation-Report.pdf

[cornholio]

Thats not bad, almost 200 in the first year. These laneway houses probably add like 1.5 or so people (my ruff guess) each. At this pace they should have 200 in 12 months and that could be 300 extra people in singlefamily neighborhoods in one year on top of everything else. Thats pretty impressive imo.

My only question is who the hell would pay $180grand on a laneway house on a existing building unless money is not a issue for them(likely west side residents). I mean if you just want it as guest housing then its a great idea but at that price it would never pay for itself if you rented it out.

[jlousa]

I agree the costs seem much more then they could be. If you crunch the numbers it still makes sense for as many people as possible to build. Even at 180K you'd be looking at a monthly mortgage payment of ~$900 with zero down and a standard 25yr term at current rates. Rental rates for lwhs are between $1200-2100/month so they are all cashflow positive from day one.

[SpongeG]

Thats not bad, almost 200 in the first year. These laneway houses probably add like 1.5 or so people (my ruff guess) each. At this pace they should have 200 in 12 months and that could be 300 extra people in singlefamily neighborhoods in one year on top of everything else. Thats pretty impressive imo.

My only question is who the hell would pay $180grand on a laneway house on a existing building unless money is not a issue for them(likely west side residents). I mean if you just want it as guest housing then its a great idea but at that price it would never pay for itself if you rented it out.

I saw on TV about a kid - well in his 30's who was building a laneway house at his parents property in east van - cause it was the only way he could ever afford to get into the real estate market - i have to imagine there are a number of people doing the same as him - making homes for their kids

[jlousa]

I know these numbers will probably be met with skepticism by some but it's important that they are out there.

BC Hydro reports that the city-wide tally of unoccupied condo units in December 2010, measured by electricity use of 75 kilowatt hours a month or less, came in at 2.4% of low-rise units and 3.9% of high-rise apartments.

Source this weeks BIV

These rates should prove that there isn't the amount of empty condos out there that some assume, these numbers shown still account for vacant units for relocation and vacations so the real number is even smaller.

[Canadian Mind]

Whats the average electricity use of a condo in a month?

[geoff's two cents]

I know these numbers will probably be met with skepticism by some but it's important that they are out there.

These rates should prove that there isn't the amount of empty condos out there that some assume, these numbers shown still account for vacant units for relocation and vacations so the real number is even smaller.

Thanks for posting. Would still be interesting to know what those stats are on a neighbourhood by neighbourhood basis though. I would predict, for instance, that the Coal Harbour and Yaletown numbers are much higher than, say, the West End or Gastown.

Would also be interested in knowing whether the "condo" number includes rental buildings as well. The technical definition of condominium of course does not, but the two are sometimes conflated.

[sacrifice333]

The sheer number of potential land packages that are cropping up on Cambie & Granville right now are astonishing! I swear there's at least a couple sections of 3-5 houses in every block!

[squeezied]

there are a few on oak street between 37 and 41 ave as well... you know, the old bungalows sandwiched between the townhouses on 37th and the lowrise appartments on 41st.

[squeezied]

I also did a quick search on realtylink.org to check out some of the houses for sale on Cambie St. I chuckled (maybe out of jealousy) to see some of them reaching past $5M, of course these are large 69X150 lots between Kind Ed station and QE park, but nevertheless that is freaking insane. The less desirable ones (those south of 49th ave start at $3.3M). If I only had a house on Cambie St... sigh.

Have a look for yourself:http://www.realtylink.org/prop_search/Summary.cfm?ComID=&agentid=&areatitle=Vancouver%20West&ARPK=37,44,36,26,10105,41,21,32,30,28,23,33,22,39,24,43,29,40,34,853,31,35,42,27&rowp=41&BCD=GV&imdp=&RSPP=20&AIDL=36&SRTB=P_Price&ERTA=false&MNAGE=0&MXAGE=200&MNBT=1&MNBD=1&PTYTID=5&MNPRC=200000&MXPRC=9000000&SCTP=RA&Page=Next&

Here's the "property description":
Developers, Investors Alert -- Large Cambie Corridor project site--pontential 3 blocks assemble opportunity.Combine to be sold with other 9 properties (also on MLS).Cambie Corridor plan for 6 storey apartment up to net FSR 2.5. True rare opportunities for investment in prestigious Westside!! Great location--steps to Queen Elizabeth Park, minutes to Oakridge Mall, Steps to Canada Line station, downtown, all amenities and top schools! All houses are good condition for great mortgage helper. Future Project building upper floors will have amazing View!View!View! If you're smart buyers, ACT NOW!All offers will be presented to the owners at 10:00am Wednesday Sept.7,2011.

We'll see how the offers (if any) will fare.

[sacrifice333]

I noticed one assembly or development site on Nanaimo near McGill that's sign had been labelled as "Reduced" though... so at least there's some consolations that the Lower Mainland hasn't reached a complete inferno.

[DKaz]

These laneway homes are cute, I wonder why all the hate. Vancouver's single family home neighbourhoods are already pretty dense to begin with.

[sacrifice333]

These laneway homes are cute, I wonder why all the hate. Vancouver's single family home neighbourhoods are already pretty dense to begin with.

I would also think that many of the laneway homes are not replacing garages, but filling empty space, thereby creating an off-street parking space and hence having a "net-zero" parking impact.

But of course there is the very slight privacy intrustion to that part of your yard that wasn't visible from your side-by-side neighbours or from your across-the-lane neighbours. :koko:

[twoNeurons]

I would also think that many of the laneway homes are not replacing garages, but filling empty space, thereby creating an off-street parking space and hence having a "net-zero" parking impact.

But of course there is the very slight privacy intrustion to that part of your yard that wasn't visible from your side-by-side neighbours or from your across-the-lane neighbours. :koko:

Of course it's not net-zero parking. You're putting more people (with cars) into a limited space. The laneway house occupants probably have a car as well, thus reducing parking by one space per house.

Not that it's a bad idea, as it utilizes the spaces better. I would certainly like to see bylaw police out there removing the ridiculous water jugs and orange cones that people put to protect the public parking in front of their home.

[racc]

These laneway homes are cute, I wonder why all the hate. Vancouver's single family home neighbourhoods are already pretty dense to begin with.
Some people hate change and have nothing better to do with their time than create drama around minor changes to their neighbourhood.

[SpongeG]

you can see the problem sort of similiar in surrey - where most of the houses have 2 basement suites and street parking is just clogged - you have the family with all its cars ususally filling the driveway and than the tenants with their cars parking on the street now almost every house has two suites with the same issue it gets pretty crowded

[Pinion]

Not that it's a bad idea, as it utilizes the spaces better. I would certainly like to see bylaw police out there removing the ridiculous water jugs and orange cones that people put to protect the public parking in front of their home.

I would've preferred a cone over just receiving a ticket as I did if I parked in front of most houses when I lived on Quebec and 33rd (no warning, no note). Apparently it's not legal to park for more than two hours in front of someone's house if they don't want you to.

This is one of the many reasons I now live on the north shore.

[whatnext]

These laneway homes are cute, I wonder why all the hate. Vancouver's single family home neighbourhoods are already pretty dense to begin with.

The ones on West 11th aren't cute, they look way bigger than others I've seen throughout the city. Not sure how they got through zoning.
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local/2011/09/05/18643136.html

[logan5]

1½ stories, gimme a break.

How long does the rest of the city have to tip toe around these arrogant people living on the west side? They refuse to accept even a tiny share of the growing pains of this land constrained city. As if your neighbors couldn't see into your back yard before. Once you have a complete laneway of homes, there will actually be a vast improvement. I hope the city ignores these few control freaks and lets the program continue.

[whatnext]

1½ stories, gimme a break.

How long does the rest of the city have to tip toe around these arrogant people living on the west side? They refuse to accept even a tiny share of the growing pains of this land constrained city. As if your neighbors couldn't see into your back yard before. Once you have a complete laneway of homes, there will actually be a vast improvement. I hope the city ignores these few control freaks and lets the program continue.

Did you even bother to look at the photo? Those are virtually full scale houses. Its a complete lie to say they are 1 1/2 stories. And your tired class warfare rhetoric ignores the fact there are plenty of areas on the West Side with density. Ever noticed those highrises in Kerrisdale?

And building over such a large surface of the lot is hardly "green". Nor is removing all the trees that were killed to build them.

[racc]

And building over such a large surface of the lot is hardly "green". Nor is removing all the trees that were killed to build them.
So what is your alternative. Highrises? They require less land but I expect the residents would like them even less.

How about bulldozing farm land or developing further up the mountains? A lot more trees would be lost then.

How about actually proposing solutions rather than just criticizing.

[racc]

Better jobs and a healthier economy too.

One Path to Better Jobs: More Density in Cities
http://www.ourbusinessnews.com/opinion-one-path-to-better-jobs-more-density-in-cities/

[jlousa]

I think the solution is to pause and study the issues that are being brought up, council stated that they would relook at laneway housing after 100units were occupied. The problem is there are now already 400+ units approved. By the time a review is conducted we will be well over 500units approved. Issues that are brought up in the review will not be able to be corrected in those 500 units and the neighbourhoods they are in will be stuck with them.
I don't think anyone is calling for banning laneway housings, I know I'm a supporter of them. I do think though that some of the complaints are legitimate though and warrant being looked at, now. Remember we are trying to build better communities not just denser ones. A community is not better is neighbours hold contempt towards each other.

[trofirhen]

Seems to me AFFORDABILITY is the wild card in this trio of elements. SUSTAINABILITY and LIVABILITY may be achievable, but the AFFORDABILITY issue is the one that often determines who can profit from living in the city, and who cannot, it seems.

[logan5]

Did you even bother to look at the photo? Those are virtually full scale houses. Its a complete lie to say they are 1 1/2 stories. And your tired class warfare rhetoric ignores the fact there are plenty of areas on the West Side with density. Ever noticed those highrises in Kerrisdale?

And building over such a large surface of the lot is hardly "green". Nor is removing all the trees that were killed to build them.

It's a complete lie to say they are virtually full scale houses. The unit is probably around 600 square feet and the structure itself is also a parking garage. You can also see in the picture that the structure is clearly stepped down in height, and most laneway houses are being built where the old garage or parking area was, so no trees are being removed in a vast majority of cases.

In the next 10 years there is going to be a rail transit station at Sasamat. In order to realize the potential of this expensive piece of infrastructure, you should have transit oriented development. Do you think it's appropriate to maintain the status quo, or would a similar plan to the Cambie corridor be acceptable? Laneway houses are a pretty innocuous form of density. If some people can't handle laneway houses, maybe city life isn't for them.

[Porfiry]

Nor is removing all the trees that were killed to build them.

Vancouver has a tree bylaw that requires any trees on private property that are removed must be replaced 1 for 1, so that should be a non-issue.

[trofirhen]

Vancouver has a tree bylaw that requires any trees on private property that are removed must be replaced 1 for 1, so that should be a non-issue.
:previous:
How long has this bylaw been in effect; do you know? :)

[whatnext]

It's a complete lie to say they are virtually full scale houses. The unit is probably around 600 square feet and the structure itself is also a parking garage. You can also see in the picture that the structure is clearly stepped down in height, and most laneway houses are being built where the old garage or parking area was, so no trees are being removed in a vast majority of cases.

In the next 10 years there is going to be a rail transit station at Sasamat. In order to realize the potential of this expensive piece of infrastructure, you should have transit oriented development. Do you think it's appropriate to maintain the status quo, or would a similar plan to the Cambie corridor be acceptable? Laneway houses are a pretty innocuous form of density. If some people can't handle laneway houses, maybe city life isn't for them.

That's a full two story house fronting the lane. And only the most naive would believe most of those garages won't end up with drywall on the back of the garage door. What do you think the chances of the city coming back to inspect for that are? I'm in favour of laneway houses, but not those ones.

As to a rail station at Sasamat in 10 years, you have far more faith in Translink than most.

[Porfiry]

That's a full two story house fronting the lane.

No one would consider 500 sqft. to be a full size house. Plus, the upper story, if present, is limited to 60% of the footprint. The laneway house absolutely cannot be a full two stories.

[Chadillaccc]

One of the most insane and awesome articles I have ever seen! Very cool!


http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2011/11/re-imagining-the-viaducts-and-eastern-core-of-vancouver/

[Alex Mackinnon]

No one would consider 500 sqft. to be a full size house. Plus, the upper story, if present, is limited to 60% of the footprint. The laneway house absolutely cannot be a full two stories.

This is a bit of a zombie thread revival, but actually one of the ones in my neighbourhood is 3 floors. I don't know if they used heritage zoning, but it's probably 1200 Sq. Ft. It's absolutely gorgeous inside and out, I got a tour last week. Amusingly I keep seeing pictures of it in random places too, there was blown up shot of it on display in the art gallery the last time I went.

It's 831 E Georgia St.

[logan5]

:previous:again , i am sorry but i am shocked by the ignorance on this forum, maybe a few course in human / social geography and some on soil sciences might help :tup:

It is true that we cold expand farmlands throughout the world... at great expense of the world's remaining natural habitats. So yes, if we want to further mass extinctions there are hugeareas of Africa and other continental masses we can clear for farms. But the problem then also become social / economic stability in those regions and the irrigation. Have you ever noticed how water is in short supply in many areas of the world? Many of them have good soils though, but not enough water....while others have plenty of water, but making them farmlands would mean tearing down huge areas of the rainforest...

And what happens if shipping prices skyrocket, or new political tensions cause massive trade wars? These are the disasters that we should be prepared for with our farmland.

And i laugh at how you state that food doesn't come from the lower mainland at any significant quantity......umm, you might want ot take a tour or two through the farmlands in Richmond, Pitt Meadows, Abbotsford, etc... they have plenty of information on just how important the Cranberry, Raspberry, Strawberry, Corn, Cabbage, etc... industries are to our region.

And your limited knowledge on this subject is once again displayed by how you took my flooding comment. Flooding is a GOOD thing for farm lands, for that is how all the nutrients in the soils were delivered there in the first place. My point was saying after removing industry from what was once farmland, it would take many successive cycles of flooding to repair them to agricultural use again.

People here should also check out their local farmer's markets, and even Save on Foods / Safeway to see actually how much produce is grown locally in the lower mainland and elsewhere in BC. Having such local produce is also a huge bonus for those who enjoy fresh fruits and vegetables.

I am sorry, but the ALR talk has often demonstrated how young and uneducated this forum is on some issues.

I thought there was an ALR thread. I can`t find it...oh well.

Eventually there is going to be a cheap way to produce electricity, and when that happens farm towers become feasible. You save a lot of land when farms are vertically stacked, plus you can grow 24 hours a day all year round, so they are way more productive than regular farms. I`m not saying that we should pave over all our farmland (we would still need some for certain crops) but technology will provide a solution for any lack of farmland problem.

[SpongeG]

i was reading about these new towers that can house birds and wildlife anad apparently the first one is being built

http://web.orange.co.uk/images/ice/quirkies/sea_tree_rex.jpg

A nature-packed floating super park has been proposed for cities like New York and London.

The Sea Tree would be a multi-tiered structure comprising of layered green habitats especially for wildlife.

Dutch-architects Waterstudio believe they would provide valuable living areas for birds, bees, bats and other small animals.

They say new opportunities for extra city parks are rare, so open space such as rivers, seas, lakes and harbours should be utilised.

...

Waterstudio claims that the first Sea Treet will be completed by January 2014 for an undisclosed client.

...

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/Floating_offshore_parks_planned_for_cities

[WBC]

OK Metro-One if you read through this - http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/agriculture/AgricultureDocs/EconomicStrategyforAgricultureMainReport.PDF

You will see that the lack of farmland in lower mainland is not a problem. Only about the half of the ALR land is farmed (and btw ALR is only 4% of the BC farmland). Out of the land that is farmed the most farms by area are actually "horse" farms that are farms only in the "tax" sense. The rest of the farms are small by provincial standards (roughly 1/10 of the size of an average farm in the province). Most of the farms in ALR are described as inefficient - lacking irrigation, too small etc. Of these small farms the ones that are actually economically active and viable are the ones that focus on organic food sector, have irrigation and produce high value crops or products (blueberries, cranberries, eggs, etc). Based on the estimates I could find ALR produces only about 3-4% of BC food needs.

The international trade agreements have opened Canadian market to imports meaning that these guys have no chance to compete with Mexican, Californian and other imports based on the scale and cost of labour. So unless you have a major change in world economy it is increasingly likely that you will have more an more hobby farms in ALR and that no real farming with a few exceptions will be taking place.

Let me be clear - I am not advertising that we turn over ALR into a bunch of condos. We have plenty of space elsewhere for that. All I am saying is that is is naive to think that ALR is our saviour in case of some sort of local emergency. And if economic factors change to the point that farming is profitable in Lower Mainland then let's just say that you can kiss the Skyscaper's forum goodbye.

[Echowinds]

The ALR that are not farmed are frequently places of nature though. In fact, those lands are even more "natural" than parks because people don't go in them nor do much with them. Currently, it is in our interest to keep these natural sanctuary even if they aren't really contributing to our food supply.

Furthermore, farming can become profitable in the future for technology advances that further reduce labour costs, which combined with lower transportation costs can allow profitability in the face of international pressure. In any case, the alarming loss of farmland in many regions in Asia and Africa coupled with an expected increase of over 2.5 billion people worldwide by 2050, as well as aquifer collapses in various regions can mean food supply may not necessary cover the demands of the world population. Remember, by 2050 the world will probably have a lot more affluent people that will expect food we are accustomed to (consume incredible amount of food, waste even more of it), as opposed to a subsistence diet that a fair chunk of the world population is getting by currently.

It is very likely that food costs will cost a greater percentage of our income in the future, even if society as a whole may be wealthier. This means that there are more opportunities for companies and individuals to make a profit from agriculture. Even if labour costs and economy of scale may mean greater profits elsewhere, it doesn't necessary mean that local farms can't make any profit in the market, if world demand for food increases several fold.

This is not to mention that the Lower Mainland can very well be an area that can devote significant space to high value agricultural goods that can target higher end consumptions, which can include wineries or orchards. The richness of soil in the region and the vast amount of accessible cheap, fresh water gives the Lower Mainland significant advantages as well.

[trofirhen]

.... what is the technical level of sewage disposal and treatment in Vancouver? Is it still mainly primary treatment, or have some districts got secondary treatment yet? And what about tertiary treatment (which Seattle has, I believe) wherein the wastewater becomes purified to human consumption level again?

[jlousa]

A quick google search provides your answer.

There are 3 secondary treatment plants, and 2 primary treatment plants.
The two primarys (Iona and Lions Gate) will be updated to secondary by 2030 and 2020 at the latest.
There isn't a need to go above secondary in Vancouver given it's location. Even now the two primaries dump directly into the Ocean, the ones that dump into the Fraser are already secondary.

[cornholio]

OK Metro-One if you read through this - http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/agriculture/AgricultureDocs/EconomicStrategyforAgricultureMainReport.PDF

You will see that the lack of farmland in lower mainland is not a problem. Only about the half of the ALR land is farmed (and btw ALR is only 4% of the BC farmland). Out of the land that is farmed the most farms by area are actually "horse" farms that are farms only in the "tax" sense. The rest of the farms are small by provincial standards (roughly 1/10 of the size of an average farm in the province). Most of the farms in ALR are described as inefficient - lacking irrigation, too small etc. Of these small farms the ones that are actually economically active and viable are the ones that focus on organic food sector, have irrigation and produce high value crops or products (blueberries, cranberries, eggs, etc). Based on the estimates I could find ALR produces only about 3-4% of BC food needs.

The international trade agreements have opened Canadian market to imports meaning that these guys have no chance to compete with Mexican, Californian and other imports based on the scale and cost of labour. So unless you have a major change in world economy it is increasingly likely that you will have more an more hobby farms in ALR and that no real farming with a few exceptions will be taking place.

Let me be clear - I am not advertising that we turn over ALR into a bunch of condos. We have plenty of space elsewhere for that. All I am saying is that is is naive to think that ALR is our saviour in case of some sort of local emergency. And if economic factors change to the point that farming is profitable in Lower Mainland then let's just say that you can kiss the Skyscaper's forum goodbye.

Couldn't of said it any better. I think the good thing about ALR is not that it is economical today but that it creates insurance for future unexpected events such as a collapse of the global economy. Not something that can realistically be planned for but it is not a bad thing for a region to be able to feed itself if it ever needed to. Kind of like having a stash of food at home in case of a disaster. No one can predict the future and having the ability to be 100% self reliant if you are cut of from the rest of the world is priceless.

[fredinno]

i was reading about these new towers that can house birds and wildlife anad apparently the first one is being built

http://web.orange.co.uk/images/ice/quirkies/sea_tree_rex.jpg

A nature-packed floating super park has been proposed for cities like New York and London.

The Sea Tree would be a multi-tiered structure comprising of layered green habitats especially for wildlife.

Dutch-architects Waterstudio believe they would provide valuable living areas for birds, bees, bats and other small animals.

They say new opportunities for extra city parks are rare, so open space such as rivers, seas, lakes and harbours should be utilised.

...

Waterstudio claims that the first Sea Treet will be completed by January 2014 for an undisclosed client.

...

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/Floating_offshore_parks_planned_for_cities

You never know if those will work or not.

[SpongeG]

eirBlt48BfE

Bm6Kccp-TNE

[logan5]

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/392396/rezoning-map-to-identify-areas-that-could-see-new-6-storey-developments/#

This story seems to indicate that the city would be willing to rezone and redevelop what looks like every arterial street in Vancouver. If there is any merit to this story, this would be a giant leap forward for the city. Or am I reading this map wrong?

[jlousa]

Practically every arterial is already upzoned, the maps includes Norquay village which was upzoned a while back, same with the Cambie corridor. This has been discussed in detail before, the issue isn't zoned capacity so much as it's economically developable density. In most cases the uplift along arterial isn't high enough to warrant redevelopment, and redevelopment will only occur at end of life of the building. That said there are some good items included in the proposal that passed today, the thin street concept is not one of them. We'll see how things play out. I hadn't include the link because it's a mind blowing 185mb but if anyone has a fast connection and wants to see the details I've placed the link below.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20121002/documents/rr2staffpresentation.pdf
Caution 185MB...

[logan5]

I'm aware of Cambie and Norquay Village. I got the impression from the map that the city would like to use the Norquay Village plan as a template for other arterials where there are currently single detached homes. I was under the impression that arterials like 49th were zoned for lower density than Norquay.

[jlousa]

We'll see how things play out, each application would still require a rezoning hearing. Most arterials are already zoned C2 which allows an FSR of 2.5 and 4 floors outright, relaxable to 6 floors by the director of planning (FSR still at 2.5). I don't believe we will be seeing FSR's of 3.8 as allowed along Kingsway in Norquay. I think the biggest positive change will be allowing additional density to be landed off the arterials. That has the potential to make the biggest change to the city as it might result is development, the arterial developments are not likely to amount to much new development that wouldn't have happened regardless.