[Bert]

Yesterday, jlousa posted a link to the EcoDensity Draft Charter & Draft Initial Actions (http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20071127/documents/rr1.pdf).

In my opinion, it's an amazing piece of work. It lists the authors as B. Toderian, R. Howard, and T. Kuhlmann. What an incredible job they've done! It definitely gives me a great degree of confidence in Brent Toderian. Also, Sam Sullivan deserves credit for his political push of the idea.

The Draft Charter essentially states that Vancouver will work toward achieving sustainability through a focus on higher density, greener building design, and more effective land use planning.

I recommend that if you don't have time to read the whole report at the link above, at least skim through the Draft Initial Actions listed below.

Draft EcoDensity Initial Actions (2008-2009)

Part I: Raising green standards
1. Greener buildings (4 storeys and over)
Achieve a new green standard in rezonings, effective immediately, by requiring at least LEED Silver equivalency for rezonings for buildings to which LEED may be applied (i.e., larger than 600 square meters; typically, these buildings are 4 storeys and over) with an emphasis on the City priorities (e.g., energy efficiency); and consult with the development industry about moving to LEED Gold equivalency or better at an appropriate time.
2. Greater sustainability for Large Site developments
Where planning policy or rezonings are undertaken for Large Sites or significant changes to existing CD-1 zones, allow consideration of development beyond the density and/or scale set out in Community Vision Directions or other area policies when the proposal shows exemplary leadership in environmental performance while also addressing affordability, and community amenities. This policy to be immediately effective for rezoning inquiries and applications for which policy development is initiated.
3. Incentives for Green Design
To encourage design considerations that improve green performance in the short term, investigate potential energy performance incentives through floor space exclusions that directly relate to green design and technologies, in advance of more detailed strategies through the Green Building Strategy.
4. EcoDensity demonstration in lower density areas
Encourage projects that demonstrate an exceptional level of leadership in innovative green design and sustainable practices, by adopting in principle the concept of an Interim EcoDensity Rezoning Policy, that would allow projects that meet specified green criteria to be considered for site-specific rezoning in advance of area planning. Projects would conform to Vision Directions about type, location, and scale. The specific Rezoning Policy would need to be reported back to Council for approval.
5. EcoDensity leadership on City land
To show City leadership and to improve understanding of, and generate interest in, emerging sustainability practices, develop a proposal to use City land for one or more EcoDensity demonstrations, at potentially varying scales and that could include a variety of EcoDensity and related features, such as deep green design, renewable energy sources, alternative parking standards, affordable housing, and urban agriculture.
6. Priority to applications with green leadership
To encourage the development industry to build at an exemplary level of green, investigate the creation of a prioritised application review system for ultra-green projects to be implemented post-2010.

Part II: Developing options for new housing types
7. More options for secondary suites within buildings
Develop options to require, allow and/or encourage secondary suites in buildings at all scales, from single family and duplex to apartments in order to increase the density of housing units within current housing forms, as well as create lower-cost rental housing.
8. New options for backyard laneway infill housing
Develop options to create a new type of lane-oriented infill, involving features such as implementation on 33’ lots without loss of existing houses; low scale forms; green performance; and rental tenure.
9. New options for arterial mid-rise housing
Develop options to create new models of mid-rise arterial housing rather than the current 4-storey model In order to provide more housing close to shops, services, and transit.

Part III – Developing supporting tools
10. Enabling District Energy
Develop a City-wide renewable energy strategy, including district energy systems, and evaluate specific regulatory and implementation opportunities through consultation and research projects using existing operating budget and contributions by other
stakeholders.
11. Amenity tools
Pursue additional policy tools for obtaining public benefits through development and for providing public benefits in order to ensure that growth is accompanied with adequate community amenities.

Part IV: Moving toward a long-term more sustainable city pattern
12. Plan for the longer term
Develop a program that will provide a city-wide context for determining where and how to make land use changes beyond existing plans and policies, in order to further improve sustainability, affordability, and livability – the program to start with mapping the city’s existing development pattern and plans, as a base for broad public discussion of additional opportunities and options.
13. Amenity strategies for the longer term
Develop a program, involving all City departments, for a comprehensive amenity strategy review, starting with documenting existing standards, delivery mechanisms, capacities, and plans, and using this as a base to evaluate and develop new strategies, with public input.

Part V: Accountability
14. Measurement tools
Continue to investigate and develop tools to measure ecological footprint performance at various scales and contexts, and indicators to assess and report on Vancouver’s progress.
15. Panel
Set up a Panel of advisors comprised of Vancouverites including academics, builders, interest groups, and residents from across the city, to provide advice as needed to further the goals of EcoDensity.
16. Progress Report Structure
Prepare a structure to assess progress and success in meeting the commitments of the EcoDensity Charter which may include an occasional EcoDensity ‘summit’ and a report card prepared at arms-length.

----

One last thought I have is that there seems to be a lot of focus throughout the document on engaging the public. Action 15 above, calling for the creation of a panel which includes interest groups, is especially interesting. Would now be a good time to resurrect Canadian Mind's idea of creating such an interest group (the Vancouver Metropolis Initiative)? I mean, with the combined knowledge and passion of the people on here, we'd probably be very well qualified to provide meaningful input to the panel.

[Canadian Mind]

heh, first time I've ever seen my name mentioned at random, thanks for the credit. :D

Anyways; aside from transit issues, and my unfailing desire to eliminate view cones, this is another reason why I wanted the group formed in the first place. so we can get our own consensus on issues, and jump at the chance to make things happen. The fact that we've been invited to do so in this case makes me feel even stronger that we should get started. We've already got a pool of well informed people, plus a place to discuss ideas, so why not get it started?

[TwoFace]

and my unfailing desire to eliminate view cones,

I don't think you would make the short list on that panel.

[Canadian Mind]

probrably wouldn't. But I don't think it would be a one man operation. And as there are probrably a dozen or more people on here with a better education regarding city planning and architecture than I; they'd be the ones that hash-out the consensus and make it legitimate/understandable as far as presenting it to the panel would go.

[Stingray2004]

The Draft Charter essentially states that Vancouver will work toward achieving sustainability through a focus on higher density, greener building design, and more effective land use planning.

Yeah, laudable goals and a good direction for the city to move towards.

But, what cracks me up is the following ... um brilliant response to eco-density by COPE councillor Cadman::haha:

_________________________________________________________________

VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - Vancouver City Councillors spent hours debating “eco-density” Tuesday, as the City attempts to create a policy surrounding the yet-to-be defined term.
Opposition Councillors say the entire process is “backwards” because instead of creating a policy and then naming it, the Mayor decided to name a concept and then attempt to define it.

COPE Councillor David Cadman says the policy so far is “tepid,” and doesn’t even go far enough to address the challenges of climate change, “Let’s look at our City and say, what does a one meter, a two meter, and a three meter rise of sea mean? Have we done that? Well, it strikes me as elementary that if you want something to be sustainable, you don’t want it to be underwater.”

Public consultations on the draft eco-density charter will be held in the new year.

[mr.x]

^ then we'll build dikes...or pull a Venice with that tide gate thing.

[officedweller]

MacDonald is the developer behind The Hudson and The Capitol - so the construction of a 40 storey tower is not beyond his reach.

EcoDensity follows the money
Vancouver Courier
Published: Friday, November 30, 2007

The most interesting thing about the EcoDensity package that went before council Tuesday is not the report. What deserves most attention is one of the amendments introduced by NPA Coun. Suzanne Anton and who stands to benefit.

Within hours of his report being made public just over a week ago, Vancouver's head of planning Brent Toderian was informed by the mayor's office that changes had to be made. The preliminary public consultation didn't produce the results the NPA wanted. They would fix that.

Brent Toderian and his crew have struggled with EcoDensity for over 18 months. They have tried to define the term Mayor Sam Sullivan is so fond of but have yet to succeed.

Their public consultation was hampered. A significant portion of the public felt either confused by the term or felt betrayed. After all, many neighbourhoods just came through 10 years of "community visioning." Now that was out and this was in.

What was produced for this week's council meeting by Toderian was a draft "EcoDensity Charter" and a series of "actions"--debating points for further public consultation.

We are being promised that all of this will somehow result in developments that pack us all in a little tighter in a variety of housing types that are presumably more affordable. Neighbourhoods will have a lighter footprint on the environment and be replete with local amenities.

But the preliminary results that Toderian introduced to council as "bold" were obviously not bold enough for the NPA.

Anton would take care of that. Her amendments were a series of proposals to offer more development options. The first one asked that building height and density restrictions be relaxed in Gastown, Hastings and Chinatown Districts to "support heritage projects, provide replacement housing and meet environmental goals."

If this happens it will drive up the value of the affected property. There is a great debate raging about the appropriateness of relaxing building heights and densities in that part of town. City planning staff is in the midst of a study that will be completed next year on the matter. Critics are concerned it will merely speed up gentrification and displace existing residents.

Throwing this into the mix now will divert attention from the discussion about new housing forms in other neighbourhoods.

But nobody could be happier with Anton's proposal than developer Rob Macdonald. Macdonald owns the B.C. Electric building at the corner of Carrall and Hastings. It is a heritage building with an adjacent vacant lot. He has been banging on city hall's door to get approval for a 40-story tower on that vacant space.

Macdonald is also a long-time NPA member and a generous contributor. He and Anton are good friends. He gave her $5,000 to help her with her own election campaign in 2005.

Because of the financial reporting rules in Vancouver, we have no idea how much Macdonald has already donated to Sullivan, Anton or the NPA towards the next campaign.

According to the city, Macdonald is one of a dozen developers itching to take advantage of this possibility. He just happens to be the one developer we know of with a good friend on the NPA majority council he supports.

This is not to say Macdonald's project lacks merit. He has a reputation as a creative guy. Former Vision Vancouver mayoral candidate Jim Green is on his payroll developing a social housing component.

Nonetheless, this will all become a distraction. We should be dealing with very real affordable housing issues in the city. What Anton, Sullivan and the rest have signalled is that the public consultation is a bit of a charade.

EcoDensity may improve housing choices and reduce our impact on the environment, but it is also a vehicle to help out their friends.

© Vancouver Courier 2007

[officedweller]

I don't see why people find this so surprising - construction has a lot of fixed costs - so the ability to build more won't make a massive impact on the price of a unit.

****************
Straight Issues
EcoDensity won't cut house prices
Straight Issues By Pieta Woolley
Publish Date: November 29, 2007

Real-estate agent Richard Morrison, who specialized in investment properties, thinks the city's EcoDensity initiative is a great way to keep property values from skyrocketing in Vancouver. He just sold a single-family home, worth nearly a million dollars, to an investor, who then tore it down and built eight 1,000-square-foot units that will sell for between $400,000 and $500,000.

"Way more density is the only way I see a softening of the market," Morrison told the Georgia Straight on November 27. "$450,000 is very affordable. Much more than buying an average home in that neighbourhood for $800,000."

The problem is that $450,000 is still double what the average Vancouver family can afford if the home doesn't have a secondary suite. With a median household income of about $56,200, according to Statistics Canada, most families max out at a $300,000 mortgage if they pay 30 percent of their incomes over a 25-year term.

According to www.mls.ca/ , $300,000 will still buy a two-bedroom condo in some parts of East Vancouver. It will also buy a three-bedroom townhouse or a small, single-family home in Maple Ridge–a long commute and the opposite of EcoDensity's goal.


At City Hall on November 27, Vancouver's director of planning, Brent Toderian, told councillors that EcoDensity won't provide housing that meets average incomes. He said that the initiative is really about keeping the market softer than it would be with less density.

"I don't think we could affect [housing] supply to the point that prices would go down," said Toderian. "Especially at the mid level."

Toderian was presenting his department's draft charter and draft initial actions on EcoDensity. It's the mayor-driven "acknowledgement that high quality and strategically located density can make Vancouver more sustainable, livable and affordable", according to www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/ .

EcoDensity has been billed as supplying more housing through densification–laneway homes, condos on top of stores, rezoning sprawling house-oriented neighbourhoods to accommodate low-rise apartments–and prices would drop into the affordable zone.

Vision Vancouver councillors Heather Deal and Tim Stevenson slammed Toderian's draft for leaving out true affordability. Deal said EcoDensity, in this report, is no different from green bonuses for developers. Stevenson wanted to know if his "ordinary kids with ordinary jobs" will be able to afford to live in the city.

"What is ordinary may change in the future," Toderian responded.

Vancouver's developers have, in fact, been densifying Vancouver swifter than the population has grown for 15 years. And, instead of prices dropping, they've soared since 1991.

Morrison told the Straight that the rush to buy condos in Coal Harbour and Yaletown is fuelled by investors, rather than folks seeking out a primary residence. He would like to know who owns the condos downtown, and who is living in them. No one seems to know.

Vancouver senior planner Rob Whitlock told the Straight his department plans to study that as part of a rental survey in 2008-09.

"Empty housing stock is very difficult to estimate," he said. "BC Stats has previously undertaken some analysis based on hydro usage, which indicated that four percent of all downtown apartments were identified as unoccupied in 2003, with eight to nine percent of condo apartments included in that number." In addition, he said, the 2001 census found that 2,600 downtown apartments were unoccupied.

Whitlock defended the idea that building more homes leads to a softer market, if not affordability. "If the number of units had not occurred, housing prices in the city generally would have escalated at an even faster rate," he said, echoing the EcoDensity draft report. "The more difficult objective for EcoDensity will be addressing housing costs for those with lower incomes, working poor, families, and others who are unable to compete in the current market."

As Deal pointed out, there's nothing in the report that requires affordability. EcoDensity has gone on to another round of public consultation, and will be back before council February 24, 2008.

[mr.x]

MacDonald is the developer behind The Hudson and The Capitol - so the construction of a 40 storey tower is not beyond his reach.

now that would be another great addition.
http://www.historicplaces.ca/images/thumbnails/2609_view0.jpg

[deasine]

EcoDensity enters the next stage of public consultation!

On November 27, 2007, Council received a progress report on EcoDensity and what we’ve heard to date. They referred a new version of the draft EcoDensity Charter, along with a set of draft Initial Actions, for further public consultation. Council also asked staff to consult on five additional Action items.

The Council report, draft Charter and draft Initial Actions are available on the EcoDensity website: www.vancouver.ca/ecodensity

Opportunities to provide feedback on these drafts will include:


Public workshops in January and February 2008 (details forthcoming)
City staff will attend your group’s meeting in January or February – contact us to arrange
Workbook and feedback sheet, to be available on the website soon
A Special Council Meeting on February 26, 2008.


Check our website regularly for more information on these events. Please also feel free to contact us if you any questions.

We look forward to working with you further on discussing how EcoDensity can build sustainable, livable and affordable communities.

.

[mr.x]

EcoDensity raises fears of crowding without amenities

Frances Bula, Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, February 11, 2008

VANCOUVER I The city is getting international admiration for its catchily named EcoDensity initiative, but some city residents are nervous about what it means for them.

As the city heads into the home stretch of public consultation on what will become an "EcoDensity Charter," resident groups have banded together to express their concern that the policy -- marketed as a way to make Vancouver a more environmentally sustainable city by promoting compact living and green building -- may result in density just being shoved into their neighbourhoods.

As well, they worry there isn't enough emphasis on creating affordable housing or complete neighbourhoods with libraries, transit and community services to go with the density.

Those are some of the points that a consortium of 23 neighbourhood groups has made in a formal letter to city council, in an effort to modify the final EcoDensity Charter, which is due to be voted on at the end of the month.

"The concept isn't bad, but we want a sustainable city, not just a dense one," said Mel Lehan, a veteran Kitsilano resident activist, who speaks behalf of groups from Southlands to Commercial Drive and Dunbar to southeast Vancouver.

Lehan said people feel the process is being rushed through and they fear that the new charter will mean that "we will have 40-storey towers that will be built in the middle of nowhere."

As well, they don't like a postscript added by Coun. Suzanne Anton to consider taller buildings in the city's heritage neighbourhoods of Chinatown, Gastown and the Downtown Eastside.

City planning director Brent Toderian said he can understand why the proposed EcoDensity Charter is provoking fear and skepticism.

"It's an unusual process and it was launched in an unusual way, so it's a challenge for the community," said Toderian, who inherited the job of putting the initiative into action when he started his job as planning director a year and a half ago.

Mayor Sam Sullivan had announced the EcoDensity initiative as a way to launch the World Urban Forum in Vancouver the previous June, somewhat to the surprise of some of his councillors.

"There are concerns about the politics and process and that's making it a challenge for us," Toderian said.

However, he said he and his staff are meeting with every community group that wants to meet with them and he is reassuring them that the EcoDensity Charter will not override the local plans most Vancouver neighbourhoods developed over the past decade as a part of CityPlan.

Instead, he said, the new charter will allow planning staff to push for environmental initiatives that complement existing policy or where policy is vague.

"I think we can do a lot that is different but is not incompatible," Toderian said.

Some resident groups are cautiously willing to give him, and the city, the benefit of the doubt.

Colin Gray, chairman of the Dunbar Visions group, which developed the west-side neighbourhood's local plan 10 years ago, said Toderian met the group before Christmas and allayed some of their fears.

On the other hand, Gray said, residents hear about proposals to build seniors' residences in their neighbourhood that are much higher than the current four-storey limit.

"There's this pressure to use the seniors' card to get more height. It just feels like there's huge pressure to get higher density."

But Gray said his group is waiting to see how events evolve.

"We're nervous, but we'll play a little bit longer."

fbula@png.canwest.com

[SFUVancouver]

How we grow remains the key to a city's livability

Craig McInnes
Vancouver Sun

Saturday, February 16, 2008

In many ways, Vancouver can fairly claim to be a world-class city. But in terms of size, it's still strictly Smallville.

Not only does it not make the global top 10 in population, it may not even sneak into the top 100, depending on how the urban boundaries are measured.

For sheer size of a metropolitan region, nothing beats the megalopolis of Tokyo/Yokohama, an urban area that has more than 33 million people -- roughly the entire population of Canada.

For a single city, Mumbai -- formerly Bombay -- on the steamy west coast of India takes top spot with somewhere around 14 million souls.

BC Stats estimates the population of Metro Vancouver to be about 2.3 million.

But as some neighbourhood groups reacting to Vancouver's proposed EcoDensity initiative are pointing out, bigger doesn't necessarily mean better.

EcoDensity is based on the notion that growth is inevitable and that sprawl is hard on the planet, especially when climate change is factored in. Although the sappy catchphrase was recently coined, it's actually based on principles that city planners have been following since citizen action kept freeways from plunging downtown in the 1970s.

The no-name version led to thousands of new residents living the city core in a phenomenon that has been largely responsible for Vancouver's enviable reputation as one of the most livable cities in the world.

Increasing population in existing neighbourhoods -- known as densification -- makes a number of good things happen.

More people mean more potential riders for public transit. More riders means that buses can run more often. That means less waiting time, which makes riding buses more attractive, which means more people will use them, which means they can run more often, and so on.

Pretty soon, there are enough riders to support rapid transit, so you can travel longer distances conveniently.

Putting people downtown means many of them can simply walk to work. That takes a huge strain off the roads and even the transit system. Despite the population growth, Vancouver is the only major city in Canada where the time people spend commuting on average is actually decreasing.

At some point, you might decide you can do without a car. According to the latest calculations from the Canadian Automobile Association, that could save you $8,500 a year plus parking, which Colliers International reports is relatively cheap in downtown Vancouver at a little more than $300 a month.

That $12,000 a year you save on a car creates another $200,000 in borrowing room when buying a home, based on a six-per-cent mortgage. You'll need that, of course, because the cost of real estate is driven in large part by the attraction of living here.

More people also support more amenities, more shops, more restaurants, more entertainment and sports, all the things that put the buzz in big city life.

So it's all good, right? Just keep packing them in.

Well, back to the world-class thing. The current density in Vancouver is a small fraction of the most compact cities of the world. Mumbai packs in close to 30,000 people per square kilometre. The City of Vancouver is about 5,000.

But Mumbai does not make the top 10 list of most livable cities.

Manhattan, on the other hand, is such a desirable city that the cost of apartments there has continued its stratospheric rise despite the crumbling housing market in the rest of the country.

Manhattan has a density roughly five times that of Vancouver.

Still, it's clear that most people who live in Shaughnessy, where the population has fallen by almost 15 per cent since 1971, don't want to live in a sea of highrise buildings.

And there is no reason Vancouver should try to emulate New York. It should have its own personality.

So regardless of the buzzwords we use, the key to livability is still how we grow.

EcoDensity reasonably recognizes that you can't have a city that exists as an island of livability in a world with an increasingly hostile environment.

But the 23 neighbourhood groups that have joined together to express their concerns about the EcoDensity initiative, which is due to be voted on at the end of the month, also have a valid point.

EcoDensity can't be used as an excuse for wrecking neighbourhoods.

But that is still only an argument against bad projects and bad planning, not against bringing new life to old neighbourhoods by recognizing that they are part of a growing city and not immune to change.

cmcinnes@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2008

[SFUVancouver]

Who's Been Densified, Who Hasn't
It's time for 'equal density.' Vancouver's Westside should absorb its share.

By Erick Villagomez
Published: February 18, 2008
TheTyee.ca

As one of Mayor Sullivan's many pet projects, EcoDensity has received its fair share of publicity and attention. For those of you "not-in-the-know," the EcoDensity initiative focuses on the idea that population/housing density is intricately related to environmental sustainability, housing affordability, and livability.

As the argument goes, housing people closer together reduces urban sprawl and our ecological footprint by making better use of smaller parcels of land. Similarly, with more people within a designated area, higher density allows communities to support local commerce, amenities, and transit. This, in turn, allows for the potential creation of walkable and transit-friendly communities.

With regards to housing affordability, the connection to density is related to housing type. In contrast to the typical homogenous single-family neighbourhoods, the belief holds that more diverse, dense house types create more diverse and affordable housing options (due to lowered construction costs, decreased development fees, and fees saved from using existing infrastructure) for a variety of households. Furthermore, this increased density would make new, more expensive energy technologies (i.e. district heating, etc.) more viable.

Lastly, and most importantly, the EcoDensity initiative preaches the idea this density must be "strategically" located. And although there are several questions, concerns, half-truths and inaccuracies regarding all aspects of the EcoDensity argument, one of the most deceitful revolves around the seemingly harmless issue of "well-located" density.

What's been densified in recent years

As most locals know very well, Vancouver has been growing and densifying at an astonishing rate over the past three decades. Buildings have been demolished and neighbourhoods transformed seemingly all over the city. In reality, however, this uniformity of growth, densification, and development is an illusion.

In general, Vancouver's growth has largely taken place in either derelict areas or neighbourhoods with minimal political representation -- namely East Vancouver. The formation of the great east-west divide goes back many years and is nothing new to any local resident. But how this has shaped the city itself is a very telling and a relevant story to what EcoDensity really means for the future of Vancouver -- an issue constantly evaded by the City of Vancouver and other avid EcoDensity supporters.

The creation of rules and regulations pertaining to building and development often take place behind closed doors. Aside from those brave homeowners who have delved into the murky waters of municipal affairs when applying for building permits, few of us are ever exposed to the effects that municipal policies have on the creation of a city. Jargon-based, poorly written, and overly confusing, reading municipal documents -- such as zoning bylaws -- is akin to some kindof water torture . . . slow and annoyingly painful.

City Hall's double standard

There is much lost, however, through the public's ignorance of these highly influential documents. For it ensures that citizens don't understand how values, biases and prejudices are institutionalized and fossilized into the way we build our cities. Even worse, it allows those familiar with the terminology and processes (an elite minority of community members, politicians and municipal officers) to publicly speak one message while silently communicating another.

This issue becomes exceedingly important when discussing a city-wide densification initiative such as EcoDensity. For, although it is touted as pertaining to Vancouver as a whole -- and although there may, in fact, be good intentions behind it -- the reality of it will necessarily be skewed in the direction of wealthy, politically savvy communities and individuals that this city has historically always favoured.

Through the 1980s and '90s, a number of important new zoning bylaws -- setting out the rules and regulations to which builder and designers must abide -- were introduced. Several of these bylaws such as RS-7 and RS-5 -- often aggressively pushed by wealthy community associations -- had the calculated effect of deflecting denser developments to East Vancouver. Under the guise of "maintaining the streetscape and local character" and through carefully developed incentives, these policies have served to preserve social homogeneity and the high land values of well-to-do communities through excluding intensification.

With limited land to develop and a growing immigrant population, these municipal practices served to direct densification beyond the concerned gaze of its wealthy inhabitants to East Vancouver. This took the form of rampant demolition and replacement of older housing stock that was, more often than not, replaced by poorly designed and built speculative housing or subdivided (legally and otherwise) into several substandard dwelling units.

Mapping the lopsided reality

At the scale of the city, this lopsided bias is blatantly expressed in the three-dimensional density map above showing population densities -- in dwelling units per acres (du/ac) -- by the block. Drawn in accordance with most recent census statistics, one can see the vast difference in population as one travels from west to east.

Given how difficult these bylaws are to change after implemented -- and despite the "intention" to re-visit the RS-5 zoning -- it is fair to say that EcoDensity will serve to exacerbate this biased condition and maintain the status quo. NPA Coun. Suzanne Anton's recent citing of Fraser & 48th and Victoria & 49th as specific areas that could "benefit" from EcoDensity serves to prove the point.

Similarly, it is clearly stated throughout the EcoDensity website that the initiative is not intended to overwrite the city plans and community vision documents created by different neighbourhoods. These visions serve to express (and, effectively solidify) the values residents have regarding their neighbourhoods. Thus, for example, it is no surprise that 86 per cent of residents within the Arbutus Ridge/Kerrisdale/Shaughnessy neighbourhoods support maintaining "most single-family areas" within their jurisdiction. Without an ability to address these biases, densification promises to be lopsided.

Eastside is doing its share

This is no small deal, since most of the East Vancouver neighbourhoods are already within, or close to, the density range that research has shown to be "sustainable" -- that is, densities between 15-20 dwelling units per acre that are enough to support walkable communities with local commerce, economically viable transit and a variety of house types that accommodate a diversity of households. Commercial Drive, Hastings-Sunrise, Main Street and Victoria Drive between 33rd and 54th are excellent examples. Thus, one can reasonably argue that East Vancouver is already "EcoDense" or, at the very least, much closer to "EcoDensity" than its Westside equivalents.

Looking at the densities of several of these Westside neighbourhoods -- some of which are the lowest in Metro Vancouver -- it would seem reasonable to asked our heroic leaders at the City of Vancouver to do something truly forward-thing, progressive, and "green." That is, focus its energy on reversing the institutionalized prejudices of the past three decades and stop subsidizing our wealthy patrons' insatiable appetite for "unsustainable" land-use practices.

Growing EcoDensity concerns among Eastside neighbourhoods is not a misunderstanding of the intentions of the initiative, as many advocates currently hold. To the contrary, it seems to me that it is simply a manifestation of the fact that these often under-represented citizens will not stand to have green smoke blown in their faces to justify yet another Westside swindle.

Related Tyee stories:

* City Abandons Its Heritage Gems (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/11/05/NoHeritage/)
Vancouver halts program that tied 'eco-density' to restoring historic buildings.

* The Myth of Dense Vancouver (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/06/21/DenseVancouver/)
Stats show city isn't countering flight to suburbs.

* Birth of EcoDensity Backlash (http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/09/21/EcoDensity/)
Angry residents demand voice in upped growth plans.

* A City's Fragile Soul (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/06/07/FragileYVR/)
The push to slick up Vancouver, and the price.

Erick Villagomez is a Vancouver architect and co-founder of Re: Place (http://regardingplace.com/), a new magazine and website focusing on sustainable urban planning and architecture in the Vancouver region, where this article first appeared.

http://regardingplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/cov_densitymap_mid.jpg

[worldwide]

you know thats the 3rd time today ive seen that map..

did anyone hit that ecodensity thing at the library earlier?

[officedweller]

From the Vancouver Sun:

Call it EcoDensity or EcoCity --either way it's a hard sell

Pete McMartin, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2008

A colleague, long retired, phones, wanting me to write a column.

He is upset. He is phoning about a rhododendron.

It was a magnificent rhododendron, he said, maybe the largest he had ever seen in the city. It threw brilliant, profuse blooms.

It used to be in his next-door neighbour's yard -- that was until his neighbour sold.

The new owner razed the property. In place of the perfectly charming turn-of-the-century Victorian that stood on the property, and the magnificent rhododendron that stood beside the Victorian, the new owner was erecting a modern architectural behemoth completely out of sync with the neighbourhood's leafy charm.

How, my colleague wanted to know, could the city allow this?

How does one stop this cultural and social erosion?

The cynic might answer, well, how do you stop change? How do you hold back the inevitable?

But cynicism evaporates pretty quickly when one is talking about one's own neighbourhood. There, urban planning and social engineering cease to be the gaseous stuff of academic symposia. It's life.

It's tangible, where the loss of a single rhododendron means something.

There have been more than a few rhododendrons come down in Vancouver in the last 30 years -- literally and figuratively -- and in their place have sprouted monster homes, condo conversions, illegal suites and a creeping densification, mostly on the east side of the city. In tandem with these has been the obscene and problematic rise of house prices. This has made many people heartsick.

For all of this, though, Vancouver has remained a city of neighbourhoods.

Despite Yaletown, almost 70 per cent of the city is single-family housing. Vancouver, essentially, remains an urban suburb. And there is a reason for this.

People love it.

They love the city's garden-like nature. They love the stability and social cohesion of a single-family neighbourhood. They like having neighbours they know.

"You know why Vancouver is the way it is?" former Vancouver mayor Mike Harcourt said in a meeting with The Sun editorial board Monday. He wasn't asking; he was telling.

"Because over the last 30 years, there has been a conscious policy that Vancouver is really a city of 23 villages, with their own community centres and branch libraries and service facilities.

"We've made sure that people have always lived in a village, not in a big city."

To me, that sounded like an eminently sane policy, and one that was not only a success as evidenced by the livability of the city itself, but one that a majority of the city's citizens had passionately embraced.

Harcourt, however, was there with a group of a half-dozen people "from the architectural and planning communities" to promote densification in the city.

Among them was architect and developer Michael Geller.

They had come to talk about EcoDensity, Mayor Sam Sullivan's copyrighted plan to densify the city to make it more "sustainable, livable and affordable."

Or rather they had come to talk about density while dissociating themselves from Sullivan.

They believed the mayor and his minions had handled the issue disastrously, had succeeded in scaring the public and had created a political opposition that had overnight coalesced around the issue.

All of which is true. A group called Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver -- which itself has said it is in favour of densification, but only if properly planned -- has signed up almost 30 community organizations in every neighbourhood in the city to oppose "the city's plan to densify neighbourhoods without plans to ensure adequate safeguards or amenities."

In response, Brent Toderian, the city's director of planning, said last week that he would recommend that council delay a vote on EcoDensity to give staff time to make recommendations.

Harcourt and Geller, who led the discussion, suggested that the process go back to square one.

They even thought it might have a new name -- "EcoCity" rather than EcoDensity, because of the negative connotations that densification suggests to the public.

But ultimately, the end result would be the same.

Whatever you called it, there would be multiple forms of densification taking place in the city -- along arterials, in backyards, on laneways.

This, the group argued, would lead to the effects that EcoDensity, or, if you prefer, EcoCity, hoped for.

But a couple of things remained unexplained. One, a map of existing densification in Vancouver that Geller had showed wildly lopsided development, with the east side uniformly more dense than the west side. As usual, the east side had borne the brunt.

So how could this group ask citizens on the east side to take on more densification when history showed that city policies had always favoured the west side? How could they guarantee that densification would be evenly distributed?

And two, the fact that almost 30 community organizations from every neighbourhood in the city had joined together to fight the EcoDensity initiative suggested to me that the antipathy toward it was widespread.

Why, I asked, would they expect anybody -- anybody! -- to jeopardize the existing livable village reality with wide-ranging social engineering that appears to have been formulated on the back of a napkin?

"The key issue," Harcourt, replied, "is, how do we maintain that sense of intimacy [the village model affords] with a growing densification?"

Good question. I listened closely, but I'm pretty sure I didn't hear an answer.

But I did ask Geller -- who was going on about duplexes and triplexes and people living in closer quarters -- where he lived.

Southlands, he said. A 3,600-square-foot home.

I wondered: Did he have room for rhododendrons?

pmcmartin@png.canwest.com or 604-605-2905

© The Vancouver Sun 2008

[worldwide]

i dont think a duplex is exactly close quarters.

some people... i tell you

[Architype]

^ That's a great map. Thankfully I live in a brown area. :)

[SFUVancouver]

B.C. Construction Show

Construction industry leaders learn about EcoDensity initiative

BRIAN MARTIN

Source (http://www.joconl.com/article/id26474)

Journal of Commerce correspondent

Brent Toderain needs the skills of a high-wire acrobat.

As the relatively new Vancouver director of planning, Toderain is performing a balancing act.

On one hand, he is dedicated to the city’s well-publicized goal of “EcoDensity” when it comes to residential development. On the other hand, he is sympathetic to the concerns of traditional neighbourhoods, which can be reluctant to embrace densification.

On Feb. 13, he spoke to more than 200 leading members of the Vancouver construction industry at the CEO Breakfast kicking off the B.C. Construction Show.

Toderain has been described as a passionate advocate for creative city building and at the meeting his passion showed through.

“We’ve come a long way in defining EcoDensity,” he said. “Now it is necessary to move towards sustainability. Density done well is our friend.”

Toderain said that Vancouver is more prepared for a full discussion on EcoDensity than any other city in North America. He pointed out that Vancouver is an exception when it comes to this subject.

“Few politicians have been willing to discuss it,” he said.

Increased urban density, he claimed, will lead to: reduced energy use; less urban sprawl; more affordable housing choices; new green design options; improved public health and increased urban vitality, diversity and safety.

To make EcoDensity work, Toderain said, requires a marriage between density zoning and green construction.

While warning that the city’s move toward increased density “will not necessarily make everybody happy”, he pledged to continue the public dialogue that has been ongoing for about a year.

The density changes in Vancouver will not happen overnight.

“Changes should be gradual, not sudden. There will always be tensions,” he said adding that the city must consider the needs of future residents as well as the needs of existing residents.

His description of density was broad.

It included everything from back alley developments such as coach houses to high rise towers.

It also included discussion about secondary suites in single family homes.

Toderain claimed that Vancouver has no intention of imposing high rise towers on traditional single family neighbourhoods. On the other hand, he explained, people shouldn’t expect to see the city zone areas around transit stations for coach houses.

When it comes to green construction, the city will be depending on standards based on the LEED system with different certification such as gold and silver demanded for different types of construction. These types of green building designs will be required.

“Whether it happens today or tomorrow it is coming and it is coming more quickly in Vancouver than in the rest of the Lower Mainland,” he said.

Toderain echoed many others in the design and construction industries when he told the meeting that green construction does not need to be notably more expensive than traditional methods.

“I’ve been told it might cost only one per cent more,” he said.

“Others have put the figure up to 20 per cent.”

The difference, Toderain said, is in knowing what you’re doing.

Contractors, he said will have to become skilled and knowledgeable in green construction methods to remain competitive.

Toderain added that densification can benefit the construction industry.

It will mean that opportunities for new residential construction remain available in Vancouver.

Under traditional density levels, he said, the city will become fully built out before too many more years have passed.

Toderain was appointed city planner 18 months ago following a career as manager of city centre planning and design in Calgary.

He spoke at the kick off to the B.C. Construction Show, which is a two-day event that annually attracts more than 10,000 people.

Additional photos from the show can be viewed on the JOC website at www.journalofcommerce.com

[jlousa]

Since no one has posted it yet, figured I'd share it. Lots of details.

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20080226/documents/SC1.pdf

[mr.x]

EcoDensity public consultations are going on as we speak at city hall. Watch the city council live feed right now:

http://cityofvan-as1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/u/317/1204/wv150en

note that there's only about an hour left.

[mr.x]

wow....lots of NIMBY's or people that have no idea what they're talking about during that entire hour. There was even one guy that was against immigration!!! He thinks it's why Canada/BC/Vancouver is overpopulated!!! And that it was city council's responsibility top stop it!!! (of course, we're only the second largest country in the world with an average population density of 3.2 per square kilometre) BTW, he was old...probably senile.

Only one comment was useful....and I believe it was Gordon Price.....5-minute speech and a whopping 10-minutes of questions from the councillors. I/They loved him.

I think it was David Cadman that lashed out at Sullivan for ignoring the transit options alternative in the discussions.

The consultations resume on Monday, March 3, 2008 @ 6 pm

[deasine]

I was on a mac so I couldn't watch the video... (argh) what was the transportation alternative thing about?

Btw here's the Facebook group for EcoDensity: http://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7420537241

[quobobo]

I was on a mac so I couldn't watch the video... (argh) what was the transportation alternative thing about?

Btw here's the Facebook group for EcoDensity: http://hs.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7420537241

The stream opened fine in WMP 9 for me (nothing there anymore though).

[SpongeG]

i saw some guy on the news last week - he was standing in china town and he points to the downtown highrises and looks back at china town and says NO we do not want "That" here - referring to the downtown highrises

just plain old weird

[mr.x]

i saw some guy on the news last week - he was standing in china town and he points to the downtown highrises and looks back at china town and says NO we do not want "That" here - referring to the downtown highrises

just plain old weird

Well, I understand Chinatown. It's just like Gastown, historical value that we need to protect. Perhaps, mid and low-rises?

But I don't understand the argument against the Downtown Eastside. Downtown needs to expand, and this is where towers should go...or at least at a few dozen chosen sites by the city. It's an expansion of Downtown.

[SpongeG]

he seemed antihighrises anywhere

[deasine]

The only thing I don't agree with EcoDensity is that it does not offer any details about preserving sites such as Chinatown and Gastown. I mean, Vancouver rejected the highway expansion in downtown (which destroys Gastown and Chinatown) so we can't really let a project destroy what we protected earlier...

[leftside]

But I don't understand the argument against the Downtown Eastside. Downtown needs to expand, and this is where towers should go...or at least at a few dozen chosen sites by the city. It's an expansion of Downtown.
Half a dozen towers along Hastings between Abbott and Carrall would be a nice start... and, yes these developments would probably block some of my view to the south... but it would be worth it.

[worldwide]

some people are just dumb...


im pretty sure that anti immigration guy was the dude i got stuck with in my group during the vpsn ecodensity meeting. he rambled about that for a while but i shot him down. turns out he was born in northern ontario, so technically he is an immigrant to our city... also he refused to acknoledge that we are on coast salish land... he was rambling about slavery or something.

[mr.x]

Videos of the Ecodensity meetings have been posted online:


FIRST NIGHT - Feb. 26:
http://cityofvan-as1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/c/317/1203/200802261915wv150en,001


SECOND NIGHT - Feb. 27:
http://cityofvan-as1.insinc.com/ibc/mp/md/open/c/317/1203/200802271915wv150en,001
The last two speakers on the 27th were Gordon Price (great presentation) and the senile anti-immigration guy. The second speaker is architect Peter Busby, another great presentation.


Next meeting: tomorrow night at 6 pm.

[deasine]

That guy is racist I swear... pointing to immigration during the 1900s... (chinese)... he is racist!

Stupid people stupid people...

[mr.x]

OMG....you guys have to watch 1:51:00 of night two!!!! senile old lady on the attack!



I would imagine that's what those poor city councillors in North Vancouver had to cope with for Site 8, only that there were 200 many more of them!

[dreambrother808]

You have to take what old people say with a grain of salt as well as some sympathy. The country they grew up in has rapidly changed into something quite different. I'm not saying that that change is a bad thing. It is just a very large change, and the fact that some older people have nostalgic feelings for the city they once knew is not exactly surprising. Anyone of any race, in any country would succumb to the same human feelings. So be a bit less judgemental of these people and perhaps imagine your grandparents in their place. If you are an immigrant yourself, imagine the reaction of people in the country you came from if the demographics had changed to the same degree there. Once again, I am not saying that change is bad, just that that kind of change can radically alter what one's sense of "home" was. I'm sure we all know that people have sensitivities on issues related to "home". Whether they be irrational or not, they are powerful, emotional cues.

[cornholio]

^Couldent of said it any better, I cant think of many countries in the world where the population wouldn't rebel against this much change and immigration in such a short period of time. Perosnally I dont mind it though we are far from being abel to determine if this is a success, im a immigrant anyways my self. Also what you will notice is that many of the Canadian born people are leaving Vancouver to places like Mission, Vancouver island, Chiliwack and the interior and there is definitely a case of segregation between all the different groups of people in our multi cultural city. Call it what you want but we all know the reasons behind these things. In anycase i would have to agree that the level of immigration is to much and needs to slow down to force them to assimilate(worked for me since i didnt have a half a million of my nationals living around me), though something tells me thats its a bit to late now. In any case i plan on leaving this country in the not to distant future anyways so im not loosing any sleep over it.

[leftside]

No place is perfect and you'll get some form of racism in most places, but Vancouver (and Canada) are some of the least racist places on the planet. I would imagine there would be similar "racist" murmurings if Seoul, Shanghai or Tokyo became 20% caucasian over 25 years.

[mr.x]

Welcome to Hongcouver!
Bienvenue a Hongcouver!

[cornholio]

Had time to watch the video today and that old lady on the second video was hilarious. I mean common she will probably be dead within the next ten years and if not dead then delusional and unaware of reality. She will never be around to see the changes so why does she care, let the younger people who will actually live with the changes make the decisions...butt out and realize your future is long behind you, live out your life and let people who actually still have a future on this rock make decisions that they will have to actually live with instead of just fertilizing a patch of grass in one of our sprawling waste of space cemeteries with out having to endure the consequences or rewards of their decisions like you will be doing pretty darn soon. Just my two cents. Im not trying to be rude, just being realistic.

[jlousa]

I agree she was old and rambling, but the fact that it won't affect her shouldn't matter. That's like saying why should I care for global warming it won't affect me. The decisions will affect her children, grandchildren etc, so let her have her say.

[mr.x]

Like anyone, she has the right to have her say....but whether her opinions have any merit is a completely different thing. I find it hillarious how it takes 10 secs for her to get to the podium, and then she spends 2 minutes rambling about the timekeeper and how she can't hear anything.:haha:

[SpongeG]

EcoDensity concept gets public's attention

Frances Bula
Vancouver Sun


Sunday, March 02, 2008


VANCOUVER - EcoDensity has emerged as the surprise hot-policy topic of Vancouver, with a second week of public meetings kicking off today to accommodate the 160-plus people who want to speak to council to support it or oppose it.

It's not what anyone could have predicted when it was announced two years ago by Mayor Sam Sullivan at the World Urban Forum as a vague but catchily named idea aimed at making Vancouver a more sustainable city.

Some, like Coalition of Progressive Electors Coun. David Cadman, say Sullivan's concept is a bad publicity stunt that has done little more than reawaken anti-developer resentment that had disappeared for a decade.

Others, including Sullivan's one-time opponent Jim Green, say that even if it's a flawed process, the EcoDensity Charter - done right - has the potential to create a road map for a better and more environmental city.

But no one disagrees that it has ignited a passionate debate.

Among the dozens of speakers are planners, architects, regular residents, former mayor and premier Mike Harcourt, environmental groups, academics, Downtown Eastside activists, developers, resident associations, business groups and you name it.

Non-Partisan Association Coun. Suzanne Anton, who has championed the idea, says the turnout "is a testament to the city's interest in the issue."

She insists that most of that interest is positive and describes the opposition as mainly "a minority" who are part of a predictable group opposed for partisan reasons.

Anton is adamant that, even in her west-side Kerrisdale neighbourhood that used to be a bastion of anti-density sentiment, people are asking her daily when it's going to go through so they can start building laneway cottages - one of the ideas that's been talked about a lot as a quick and easy first step for EcoDensity.

But those on the other side say the poorly defined and density-first focus of EcoDensity has actually managed to bring together opponents, and lots of them, from every neighbourhood in the city.

The Group of Neighbourhoods, headed by longtime COPE activist Mel Lehan, has representatives from 30 resident groups who represent every part of Vancouver.

Cadman said that's a shame.

"You've now got people who are antagonistic to developers where before you had communities working things through. We've now created a divide where none existed or needed to exist. The mayor has actually put out a disuniter between the community and the developers."

Certainly, dozens of the speakers will be emphasizing their fears that EcoDensity will just mean having density shoved into their neighbourhoods without any real efforts to make those neighbourhoods sustainable by providing services, transit, or parks.

Cadman says that's understandable, given that the EcoDensity charter doesn't seem to have any guarantees that sustainability or community services will be as important as density.

People like Green or Cheeying Ho from the environmental group Smart Growth say they understand why people in the community are nervous and their fears need to be addressed.

But they're supporting EcoDensity anyway because there's so much that is valuable to be gained from it.

"They have legitimate concerns that are very real," says Green. "And I don't think [the EcoDensity process] has been handled correctly and I don't think people trust the NPA."

In spite of that, says Green, he's supporting the charter and even its most controversial amendment, the one that Anton introduced to consider allowing extra density in the city's historic districts of Gastown, Chinatown and the Downtown Eastside.

Green said that kind of policy will help save those districts, by giving the city a tool to get community services from developers in exchange for extra density.

Green is working with at least two consultants in the Downtown Eastside on projects that involve having the city grant extra density in exchange for social housing.

He said he sees the Woodward's project he championed, which includes private and social housing, community non-profits and a university arts centre, as a "first-stage EcoDensity" project.

"All of us will find aspects in this concept that are contrary to our vision of Vancouver's future. And there are elements that we can all endorse."

fbula@png.canwest.com

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=1959df08-9a19-4a04-86b5-b9ef970a2cdc&k=78801

[deasine]

eww I hate David Cadman argh.... seeing him in the videos made me so frustrated. Too bad I couldn't attend ANY of the meetings or else I would've and I would voice my opinions as well.

EcoDensity objectives also include REDUCING CAR USE (David Cadman made a big deal out of transportation).

[quobobo]

Vancouver neighbourhoods needn't fear the impact of EcoDensity plans
Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, March 08, 2008

The debate over EcoDensity got off to a bad start in Vancouver, but that doesn't make it a bad plan. The name became too closely linked to the political future of Mayor Sam Sullivan after he briefly took out a trademark in his own name before turning it over to the city. But more importantly, the controversial brand name has become a lightning rod for fears that developers are going to be given carte blanche to turn peaceful, family oriented neighborhoods into row after row of Soviet-style apartment blocks.
To try to cool some of the rhetoric, some proponents have suggested changing the name of the initiative now under consideration by city council to EcoCity.

That wouldn't really help. It would simply add confusion and no one would really be fooled. The debate really has to be about density. Like it or not, Vancouver, like the rest of the Lower Mainland, will continue to grow. The question is how. The central notion behind EcoDensity is sound. Cities embody one of the great opportunities we have to tackle global warming.

There are cascading opportunities that flow from replacing growth through energy-intensive suburban sprawl with more compact neighborhoods.
High on the list is getting people out of cars. Commuters can't leave their cars at home unless they have a viable alternative. That means access to transit. Viable public transit needs riders, the more the better. It also means zoning that allows people to live close enough to where they work that they can choose to walk or ride a bicycle. More people also support more amenities, shops, theatres and restaurants, all the things that make great cities great. And if it is done right, all of this growth can occur without increasing traffic on the roads. We have actually seen a decrease in commuting time in Vancouver over the past decade.

We've been reaping the benefits of such growth in Vancouver for the last 30 years as thousands of people have moved downtown. So what this debate is really about is doing it right. It's clear that many people who live in the suburban style neighborhoods within Vancouver fear that EcoDensity is a Trojan Horse that will allow developers to destroy their Arcadian existence.
But EcoDensity cannot mean unfettered growth. No developer should be allowed to tear down a single family home in the middle of the block and replace it with an eight-story condominium.

But that same leafy street may be able to accommodate well-designed carriage houses and suites that can significantly increase the stock of affordable rental accommodation in the city without harming the character of the neighborhood. The arterial roads that run through such neighborhoods can support greater growth without harming the adjoining streets.
In fact, the best opportunity for improving life in such neighborhoods is to enable high-frequency transit within walking distances so people can leave their cars at home. And one of the most promising ways of paying for rapid transit is to reap the value of significantly increased density around or in some cases over the top of stations.

Even on arterial roads, however, development has to be controlled so that the quality of life for existing residents is enhanced, not destroyed. That still leaves room for creating new zoning that permits denser developments by right so that builders don't have to go through an expensive variance for projects that fit within acceptable guidelines. Does that mean that the concerns of local neighborhoods won't be heard? Hardly. What it should mean is that those concerns will be heard in the context of the need for growth that enhances life in the city and the Lower Mainland.

-------

I would go a little farther than this (if we're not going to seriously densify the "suburbs" right around the downtown core now, when will we? They're the logical next step after the downtown core...) but it's still nice to see a pro-EcoDensity article.

[jlousa]

Here's the latest on Eco-Density. Just alot of rewording, not too much changes, some good requirements on the Green front with ever toughing standards over time. No mention of density bonusing for retractable roofs though. :tup:

http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/webupload/File/03%20Actions%20Appendix%20B_FINAL.pdf

Lets see some good dicussion.

[quobobo]

Reposting my post from General Updates:

I don't think EcoDensity was terribly daring to begin with, but it sounds like they're trying to cater to NIMBYs even more. They added a lot of concessions like "...while respecting neighbourhood character", "In making such recommendations, staff will consider the benefits and potential
impacts (e.g., number of such lots, parking spillover, livability)..." that water down the actions.


Staff be directed to report back to Council on by-law amendments that would allow the Director of Planning to consider up to 10% additional discretionary density for development projects in the Downtown and Central Broadway areas, without a rezoning, where urban design, form, and architecture are deemed appropriate.
....

Since some sites would not be able to accommodate a potentially cumulative 20% additional discretionary density from an appropriate urban design perspective, how would the City make the choice of whether the bonus would be for heritage or public benefits bonus, or some of each? How would the spending of the accumulated funds be determined?

Okay, this is getting kind of ridiculous. It's called EcoDensity and a 20% increase in density is too much? I can't think of any locations where that would be the case.

Removal of Barriers to Green Building Approaches
Staff be directed to report back to Council with proposed by-law amendments, after
stakeholder consultation, to remove or mitigate existing disincentives to greener building
design practices, including:
• FSR exemption for above-grade mechanical space for hydronic heating and cooling
systems;
• FSR exemptions relating to wall thickness where improved insulation is achieved;
• FSR exemptions for larger balconies where they contribute to energy performance and
occupant comfort;
• Discretionary minor height relaxations for roof mounted renewable energy
infrastructure or appropriate access to green roofs;
• Amending side yard and overhang requirements to allow for greater application of
fixed external shading devices.


This seems silly. Extremely specific FSR exemptions are just too much micromanagement for my liking.

[vanlaw]

I fail to see how this plan, or any other, will make Vancouver "affordable".

[jlousa]

You can't do anything to make a city more affordable. Price is affected via supply and demand, they are trying to increase the supply side, they could only try and lower the demand by makeing the city less desirable, but that's not on anyones agenda.
Every real-world attempt of citys trying to control prices has lead to negative results in the long term.

I am happy that the green standards became mandatory and that they will be pushed upward over time. Rather see Gastown/Chinatown left out of any height increase, there are other ways to increase density (not to mention density is not an issue there). The arterial roads being upzoned to 6-8 sounds good to me and hopefully we see that.

[worldwide]

I fail to see how this plan, or any other, will make Vancouver "affordable".

its all relative, and "affordable" in vancouver is still relatively expensive compared to thunder bay or winnipeg, but thats because nobody wants to live in thunder bay, but they do want to live here.

smaller houses, more rentals, smaller pieces of land. i fail to see how this plan will not make vancouver somewhat more affordable, especially considering that if we do nothing then it will become much much less affordable.

[twoNeurons]

Sounds like it will be less affordable to me. Smaller units usually command a higher price / sq. ft.

I think they're using affordable as a way to make it sound more appealing to people.

I think eco-density is a good idea... especially if centred around public transit.

[jlousa]

Sounds like it will be less affordable to me. Smaller units usually command a higher price / sq. ft.

I think they're using affordable as a way to make it sound more appealing to people.

I think eco-density is a good idea... especially if centred around public transit.


Even if psf is higher with a smaller unit, it's total cost would still be much lower, thus allowing more people to enter the market.

[Bert]

Aside from densification, which makes only a small impact on affordability, we could take a page from the housing schemes in Hong Kong, or, closer to home, Whistler, where there is a limited supply of "secondary market" low cost housing available for those who are willing to sit on a wait list for several years. Of course, those kind of measures have significant impacts on the property market, which obviously make them unpopular to developers and people who already own. That may be the price of real affordability though. Mind you, I'm not really sure how effective these schemes are, especially in the long term.

[quobobo]

Aside from densification, which makes only a small impact on affordability...

Small impact? Maybe in some cases, but think about how much the housing market here is artificially limited. Just take a look at any zoning map (freestanding houses everywhere), and remember that density bonuses are worth an awful lot (so there's clearly a lot of demand for more housing that isn't being met). There's a LOT of room to add extra housing supply.

Edward Glaeser of Harvard has estimated that regulations (mostly zoning, height limits limiting density) inflate the cost of housing in Manhattan by 50%, I wouldn't be surprised if we were higher as we have much more room to grow.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/files/Manhattan.pdf

[jhausner]

I don't buy it.

Without going into a huge verbage of my opinion on the BS hype surrounding eco and green that people buy into constantly, common sense dictates that anything 'sold' or 'marketted' with the term 'green' or 'eco' in it, will be jacked up in price.

So any affordability gained from the lifting of the artificially limited housing market in Vancouver, will be gained back when developers tell everyone their windows in the new eco-density development are magical and by reflecting 20% extra Sun, they reduce the need for cooling during the summer and as a result that feature means your place should cost $35,000 more. And logic also dictates around here that density = higher prices. I can buy a 1500 sq. foot townhouse here in Surrey for $200,000. I couldn't hope to buy anything in Infinity, Sky Towers, or any other dense development even just here also in Surrey at 1/3rd that sq. footage, for that price. I'd pay higher.

You're going to pay no matter what, there will be no saving. The city can argue that densification means less traveling means less need for cars means less need for mass distribution of goods across a large region means you can ride your bike instead of drive a car, I can go on and on. But at the end of the day there is a cost to that. It doesn't reduce affordability because you have to pay for those conveniences because the marketting world sees the above as 'gains' over the old way and gains = more money always. Why are appartments on the 30th floor worth more than the 1st floor, exact same layout? View. View is seen as a gain thus you pay more. Same goes for eco-density. It's a gain, for the environment and your health, so you will pay trust me. And people will pay and smile about it because they are convinced that they are saving the world which they aren't really in the grand scheme of things.

Case and point:

Toyota Prius:
Gas Mileage = 8.46L / 100KM (lower better)
Average Price = $23,370 USD

Toyota Corolla:
Gas Mileage = 7.92L / 100KM (lower better)
Average Price = $17,655 USD

The green people would tell you the Hybrid Prius is the wave of the future. It's more friendly for the environment and the technology more advanced so we should buy one.

I don't know about you, but according to the numbers above, the Corolla, a standard gas guzzling non-hybrid, goes further for the same amount of fuel. Wouldn't that mean the Corolla would be better for the environment, or more 'green'? And check the price difference.

Like I said, people need to watch out when green and eco enter into any word. Sure there is some validity but when you're talking politicians (in this case the mayor and council of Vancouver) or business people, they use the words just to milk more money out of us all.

Thus why I have my doubts that this initiative will not end up driving down affordability in Vancouver even further and that they are just trying to cash into this fad to get re-elected. Oh right it's an election year this year isn't it? Hmm...

I don't know about you, but I personally would like to hear one of the mayors in this region say that they have a new initiative called the passing of a bylaw that will require all gas stations to install infrastructure and support hydrogen fuel by 2010. The only reason we don't have true environmentally friendly cars is because we lack the infrastructure. If they really want to help the environment (which they don't), then someone would step up to the plate and take a stand against business. I mean look what happened when the Province passed a law forcing gas stations to have pre-sales for gas before you pump. It got done. And fast. Let's see some real eco-stuff for a change, not just fluff.

I mean let's face it, the problem people have with cars is that they pollute. If we actually spent all this effort on making cars NOT pollute, would that be easier and better in the long run? Then you can drive around in your non-polluting car all you want. Who cares if the sprawl is 50 miles. You're driving a tree. One of these days I'm going to run for council for one of these cities. I just have to wait until I'm older and more bitter... oh wait.

I could be off my rocker though who knows...it wouldn't be the first time. It's also midnight and I'm a bit tired thus pissy, so take what I say with a grain of salt and bias. :D :cool:

[deasine]

It's true to a certain extent. Affordability isn't a huge point of Ecodensity. But if you think about supply vs demand: ecodensity increases supply [townhouses, apartments, etc.] and decreases demand, which in turn lowers prices. Of course if you factor in the neighbourhood location, views, etc. everything will be a little different but on average, it's still cheaper than buying a single family home.

With regards to your example, I'll buy neither of the cars *winks* I dun like corollas [stereotype of corolla = bad driver, too bad all those stupid Richmond chinese ppl ruined the car name]. Hybrids are not the wave of the future, it's simply a stepping stone. Some of you might know what this means [as a comparison], it's like saying Windows 6.1 Mobile is the future for a long time and those who are in the cellphone business know Windows 7.0 Mobile is the next big thing for Microsoft Mobile. Go electricity and hydrogen! Oh wait, excuse me, go StreetCar and pubic transport!

[cornholio]

a single family home is by far cheaper then a condo or townhome in Vancouver. You have to factor in the fact that you can rent out the basement which over 30 years can give you well over $400,000+ in rent fees. So suddenly that $500,000 home really costs around a $100,000 unlike that condo that costs $300,000+(for much, much, much less space). Then you also have to remeber that with the home you own land, with the condo you own nothing. With the home your great grandchildren will have a home, with the condo your great grandchildren will have nothing. Personally if I knew that there could have been a home passed down to me but my great, great grandpa rather choose to buy a condo instead then I would be mighty pissed at the dumbass. With a condo all you pay for is a lease on land probably smaller then a parking space when you divide the occupied land by the number of residents in the building and the costs to build the thing.

[mr.x]

^ with me, single child on my side of the family.....6 homes, 1 condo - ALL MINE!

[deasine]

a single family home is by far cheaper then a condo or townhome in Vancouver. You have to factor in the fact that you can rent out the basement which over 30 years can give you well over $400,000+ in rent fees. So suddenly that $500,000 home really costs around a $100,000 unlike that condo that costs $300,000+(for much, much, much less space). Then you also have to remeber that with the home you own land, with the condo you own nothing. With the home your great grandchildren will have a home, with the condo your great grandchildren will have nothing. Personally if I knew that there could have been a home passed down to me but my great, great grandpa rather choose to buy a condo instead then I would be mighty pissed at the dumbass. With a condo all you pay for is a lease on land probably smaller then a parking space when you divide the occupied land by the number of residents in the building and the costs to build the thing.

It all depends on how much you could afford at the time. Honestly I would rather buy a condo now than having to wait MANY years to be able to purchase a house. Factor in your morgage as well. I agree that having a house is a long-term investment; and one that will be worth it too.

[worldwide]

But if you think about supply vs demand: ecodensity increases supply [townhouses, apartments, etc.] and decreases demand, which in turn lowers prices.

ecodensity doesnt increase or decrease demand... it may help decrease the quantity demanded temporarilly if a number of projects flood the market at the same time, but thats it.

ecodensity works more with the supply side so that buyers arent bidding up the prices as much

[deasine]

ecodensity doesnt increase or decrease demand... it may help decrease the quantity demanded temporarilly if a number of projects flood the market at the same time, but thats it.

ecodensity works more with the supply side so that buyers arent bidding up the prices as much

Yes, also true, which was basically my main emphasis. But if there is more supply, chances are your demand will decrease. That was obviously not the case a few years ago: but now, with the condo boom starting to slow down and real estate values not skyrocketing as high, demand for condos won't be too high either. Things will probably change after the olympics though.

[quobobo]

a single family home is by far cheaper then a condo or townhome in Vancouver. You have to factor in the fact that you can rent out the basement which over 30 years can give you well over $400,000+ in rent fees. So suddenly that $500,000 home really costs around a $100,000 unlike that condo that costs $300,000+(for much, much, much less space). Then you also have to remeber that with the home you own land, with the condo you own nothing. With the home your great grandchildren will have a home, with the condo your great grandchildren will have nothing. Personally if I knew that there could have been a home passed down to me but my great, great grandpa rather choose to buy a condo instead then I would be mighty pissed at the dumbass. With a condo all you pay for is a lease on land probably smaller then a parking space when you divide the occupied land by the number of residents in the building and the costs to build the thing.

A $500,000 house really costs $100,000? Not so sure about that...

$500,000 over 30 years with 5% interest means about $2650 in mortgage payments every month. There is no way that someone renting your basement out is going to pay 4/5 ($2120) of that. Also, anywhere you can find a freestanding house for $500,000 you're probably going to need a car, which is a significant cost (including gas, maintenance, and insurance).

As for the condos, freehold (and leasehold if there's enough years left) condos are still worth a lot even when they're 50-60 years old. If you buy new (not especially difficult if you trade up to a new condo after paying off your first one) then you're guaranteed to have something for your kids.

[twoNeurons]

I mean let's face it, the problem people have with cars is that they pollute. If we actually spent all this effort on making cars NOT pollute, would that be easier and better in the long run? Then you can drive around in your non-polluting car all you want. Who cares if the sprawl is 50 miles. You're driving a tree. One of these days I'm going to run for council for one of these cities. I just have to wait until I'm older and more bitter... oh wait.


I love this paragraph. :haha:

[Bert]

First, a quick link for jhausner (with respect to energy efficiency being an easy solution, not necessarily hybrids as the headline states): http://www.alternet.org/story/84982/?page=entire

Small impact? Maybe in some cases, but think about how much the housing market here is artificially limited. Just take a look at any zoning map (freestanding houses everywhere), and remember that density bonuses are worth an awful lot (so there's clearly a lot of demand for more housing that isn't being met). There's a LOT of room to add extra housing supply.

Edward Glaeser of Harvard has estimated that regulations (mostly zoning, height limits limiting density) inflate the cost of housing in Manhattan by 50%, I wouldn't be surprised if we were higher as we have much more room to grow.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/files/Manhattan.pdf
Fascinating paper, quobobo - you always come through with the economics stuff.

Admittedly, there was no analysis behind my claim. I was just extrapolating (like others here) the rising density in Vancouver over the past, say, 15 years, in particular, appears to have had no impact on affordability. Metro Vancouver is likely, for the moment at least, the most expensive metro in North America (given recent price declines in expensive US metros).

After reading the paper, I'm going to have to agree that, on balance, the removal of height limits would increase affordability by more than a "small amount" as I said before. How much is very, very unknown, but I'd be pretty sure it's at least 15%, which is more than I was thinking by a "small amount".

For those who don't want to read the paper, the overall conclusion is that NIMBYs create regulations to protect the (perceived) value of their investments, causing prices to be higher than they'd be in a free market. The most important regulations from an economic standpoint are those that limit the size of the building, like height limits (which restrict marginal revenue). The authors argue that the 50% premium for prices in Manhattan compared to construction costs of the top floor (the marginal cost units) is essentially due to regulation. Now, basic economics dictates that developers set marginal revenue equal to marginal costs to maximize profits. A height limit stops developers from ever reaching this point, since marginal costs increase quite slowly with each additional floor, and therefore we're left with a significant price premium and far shorter buildings compared to what a free market would produce.

Note this 50% cost premium number is before taking into account the social costs of removing regulations, which the authors estimate at up to 17.5%, which would leave a conservative 32.5% price premium due to height limits.

While generally in agreement, I have a number of criticisms for this paper, particularly in applying it to Vancouver:

1. Market prices reflect densification potential, even when density is regulated; for example, just because a SFH near a growing town centre is zoned single family today, it is very likely that it will be upzoned in the future, and the market responds to that, which probably makes up a chunk of the difference between marginal revenue and marginal costs (for non-high rises, at least). These effects are magnified in urban areas where smart growth policies and urban boundaries are in place (like Metro Vancouver).

2. While reasonably perfect competition may indeed be the case in Manhattan, I'm not sure if the same assumption can be made elsewhere, like Vancouver. I just don't know. If not, then some of our price premium comes from monopolistic profit.

3. The paper says, "... the cost schedule does not rise steeply with building height. Specifically, ... average costs typically rise by 0.5 percent for each added floor between 3 and 30, and then by 0.4 percent for each floor above 30." I accept that from the marginal cost side. But there is also the impact on decreased marginal revenue from reduced saleable floor space as building height grows due to requirements like needing more elevators (this is especially important with Vancouver's skinny towers). However, I'm not sure what the marginal revenue penalty would be exactly. Also, Vancouver condos have something like a 1.5% per floor view premium which might offset that marginal revenue reduction.

I wish the authors would go so far as to say how tall buildings should be. Using the paper's numbers, I gave it a shot. Figuring in a $250 psf marginal cost for the 30th floor, for a standard suburban tower here, and a marginal suburban revenue of $330 per built square foot (assuming it rises constant with height, with sales of a little over $500 per saleable square foot, and a 0.64 saleable-to-built ratio like in the paper), our suburban condos would be 100-floor buildings if there were no height limits, as the 100th floor would cost $330 psf.

Or, let's say it costs $400 psf to build Shangri-La's 30th floor due to higher quality; it then costs $450 psf to build its 60th floor, and assuming saleable prices around $2,000 psf (that is, $1,300 per built square foot) with enough demand to sell the entire building, Shangri-La would be 325 floors high, as the 325th floor would cost $1,300 psf.

4. The authors assume that no amount of additional density would alter the characteristics of Manhattan, which is already quite dense. Certainly, Vancouver would be transformed much more substantially if all regulations were lifted, which may bring more negative externalities than they calculated, especially with respect to the congestion externality.

The authors also did not account for some negative externalities of density that regulation protects against. The one that particularly jumps out at me in the Vancouver context is sunlight/shadowing. Our planners have gone to great lengths to ensure a livable city by maximizing natural light, although I'm not sure what the economic value of that would be. Also, we have more natural views to protect than Manhattan, and the authors say natural views are more valued.

Also, a huge one they overlooked in general is meeting minimal health/environmental/safety standards. If the building is unhealthy, the additional residents cause a disproportionate burden on our health care system. If the building is an energy hog, the additional residents create disproportionate pollution per capita. If the building is unsafe (i.e. it'd collapse in an earthquake), there are obvious negative externalities there as well.

5. The section on SFHs looks lazily put together and throws the entire paper into question. These places would seem to have more to gain from relaxed regulation (in some places at least) than Manhattan towers, but the authors don't have any data which shows that.

6. The analysis is really too narrow in scope, since it mainly looks at Manhattan. For it to be more persuasive, it needs to study a market where regulations/NIMBYs have a much smaller effect on restricting building heights. Was it the case that HK had no height limits for a period of time? Yet I don't see any 500 floor residential buildings there... Maybe Dubai is something to look at?

----
That's all I have to say about it. Still, a very insightful paper overall.

One last thing I found interesting was that in 2002, the mean/median price in Manhattan was $500/sq. ft. That's what Jewel (http://jewelhomes.ca/) in Metrotown (and other suburban developments) started selling for yesterday, and there was even an overnight lineup at that price, though I'm not sure how well it actually sold.

[jlousa]

If your suburban towers are all 100 floors, and your Shangri-la was 325 floors, this is what would happen. the Cost per floor (your estimates are on the low side, very low) would stay the same, lets say $350psf. The problem is the demand side is not there to absorb these 100 story towers at $400psf, you would have to limit supply until there were enough people willing to pay that $400psf, that's the situation we are in today.

If you opened the floodgates it would crash the market as the amount of product that would enter would bring the prices down below what it would cost to make it. The market does a pretty good job in the long run of controlling supply/demand. Trying to regulate because of short term effects usually screws up the market more, it should be left to it's devices.

[Bert]

If your suburban towers are all 100 floors, and your Shangri-la was 325 floors, this is what would happen. the Cost per floor (your estimates are on the low side, very low) would stay the same, lets say $350psf.The $250 psf for 30th floor suburban construction cost was roughly the number for an average development in Manhattan in 2002, and given their $500 psf prices at the time match our suburban prices now, that's where I estimated that # from (obviously that's a really rough, horrible way of estimating, but I don't know the local construction market). Shangri-La's psf numbers were admittedly completely made up - they're actually higher than the luxury construction number provided in that paper. It'd be interesting to know what our local #s are though... can you provide any? I know we do have a wee bit of a labour shortage.

The problem is the demand side is not there to absorb these 100 story towers at $400psf, you would have to limit supply until there were enough people willing to pay that $400psf, that's the situation we are in today.

If you opened the floodgates it would crash the market as the amount of product that would enter would bring the prices down below what it would cost to make it. The market does a pretty good job in the long run of controlling supply/demand. I am aware how ridiculous the building heights I came up with sound, but that's with a completely free market. If we still maintain regulations which cover social costs at the optimum 17.5% level, as estimated by the paper, we'd be looking at 60-floor suburban condos and a mere 285-floor Shangri-La. And, yes, that is making the unrealistic assumption of inelastic demand at current prices. But more realistically, if regs were suddenly lifted, supply might rise too quickly due to imperfect market information among developers, and prices would be driven down, potentially crashing the market, as you say. After the crash, well... it's too late for me to use my brain to sort out what would happen, but maybe moderately taller (i.e. shorter than all my estimates), more affordable towers built at a slower pace is a decent guess.

Trying to regulate because of short term effects usually screws up the market more, it should be left to it's devices.Mind you, the point here *is* to relax some regulation, to the point where only social costs are covered, to achieve a socially optimal outcome. Not that I'm saying it'd work out perfectly... but after reading that paper, I have done an about face, and now believe that affordability would benefit somewhat significantly from relaxing regulations. The hard part is calculating how much to relax regulations, and the impossible part is getting that by the NIMBYs.

Edit: a more sobering morning look with a clearer head tells me that the authors of the paper significantly underestimated social costs of building and other factors (as per my critiques in post #61 above), while at the same time, jlousa is saying I significantly underestimated construction costs. Putting 2 + 2 together, heights should only be a little bit taller, and I'm not certain prices would come down by very much at all. I say towers would definitely be a little bit taller, because developers today routinely build to height limits, so marginal costs can't be meeting marginal revenue already, but I'm closer to my original position of density only having a small impact on affordability than I was yesterday night.

[jlousa]

I agree with no regulation we would see a little more height in some areas, and much more height in others, ie Kits, Point Grey, etc.

I would state that no regulation would greatly increase affordability, but no because of the increased supply, more because of the reduced demand. The reason that makes Vancouver so expensive and desired is the ammenties provided. Seawalls built by developers, parks provided by them, public art, revitalization of ammenties (Capitol/Orphuem) DCLs paying for libraries, community centres etc. If we took away regulations and those things would no longer be required, the appeal of Vancouver would diminish over time. Leading to that extra supply and less demand to absorb it, prices would surely come down, but would it matter? Would we still want to live here?
We have created our own problem but it might just be better then the alternative.

[Bert]

I thought about the amenities perspective earlier as well, but I initially figured it wasn't much of a factor in marginal cost. Yet, obviously, with higher density, more amenities are required to maintain quality of life, so it too is a factor. At the same time though, amenities are bonused for already, and I understand the bonusing is determined in part by the scale of the amenity (though I could be wrong). So, I think that's why I excluded discussion of amenity bonusing before - amenities, although regulated, are already compensated for through relaxation of regulation, and so have negligible impact on restricting marginal cost from meeting marginal revenue compared to the supply caps imposed by building size limits.

I think what the paper and myself are trying to argue applies to a scenario where demand remains constant, since all external social costs of building would be covered by regulation, so more building wouldn't necessarily reduce demand. In contrast, it's the NIMBY-based over-regulation (i.e. view cones) and additional, non-regulated, socially irrational NIMBY opposition that we're talking about getting rid of, since it limits supply by more than a socially optimal amount (i.e. protecting mountain views isn't worth it, since, if it was, the market rates offered for views would be higher). This supply relief will obviously make things a little more affordable, but I don't think we'd see the big 32.5%+ difference in pricing as the paper states, especially in our market (with a higher construction cost-to-price ratio, and more legitimate need for regulation compared to what the authors accounted for in Manhattan in the paper).

[MistyMountainHop]

Toyota Prius:
Gas Mileage = 8.46L / 100KM (lower better)
Average Price = $23,370 USD

Toyota Corolla:
Gas Mileage = 7.92L / 100KM (lower better)
Average Price = $17,655 USD

My parents' Prius generally gets way better mileage than this — 6 L / 100 km city and 4 to 5 L / 100 km highway.

[quobobo]

Thanks for reading the paper so thoroughly, Bert - I didn't expect such a good discussion. You're right that it may not be completely applicable to Vancouver, but it's by far the best analysis of zoning and housing cost I've seen to date. Glaeser is my hero, he’s done a lot of really interesting work on urban economics.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/papers_glaeser

2. While reasonably perfect competition may indeed be the case in Manhattan, I'm not sure if the same assumption can be made elsewhere, like Vancouver. I just don't know. If not, then some of our price premium comes from monopolistic profit.

Good point. However, I think that as the amount of regulations/paperwork required for development was reduced, it would make entry into the housing development market easier, resulting in more competition.


3. The paper says, "... the cost schedule does not rise steeply with building height. Specifically, ... average costs typically rise by 0.5 percent for each added floor between 3 and 30, and then by 0.4 percent for each floor above 30." I accept that from the marginal cost side. But there is also the impact on decreased marginal revenue from reduced saleable floor space as building height grows due to requirements like needing more elevators (this is especially important with Vancouver's skinny towers).

Agreed, I hadn't thought of that. I imagine that this would be insignificant in most buildings under 20 stories or so, but it should definitely be factored in for others.

4. The authors assume that no amount of additional density would alter the characteristics of Manhattan, which is already quite dense. Certainly, Vancouver would be transformed much more substantially if all regulations were lifted, which may bring more negative externalities than they calculated, especially with respect to the congestion externality.

Agreed, we would be more affected by congestion than Manhattan. However, I believe this would be somewhat short-lived, as better transit would be implemented for the increased density. Also, car use would likely go down with the removal of off-street parking requirements and subsidized (i.e. below market price) street parking. It might hurt a little now, but I believe we’d reap the benefits later.


The authors also did not account for some negative externalities of density that regulation protects against. The one that particularly jumps out at me in the Vancouver context is sunlight/shadowing. Our planners have gone to great lengths to ensure a livable city by maximizing natural light, although I'm not sure what the economic value of that would be. Also, we have more natural views to protect than Manhattan, and the authors say natural views are more valued.

True, but they also aren’t accounting for some related positive externalities like improved access to shops/services in densified areas and busier/more vibrant neighbourhoods. I recognize that not everyone would trade some sunlight for that, but I certainly would.

It would be nice if someone could find a way to quantify how much people value additional sunlight, but I imagine that would be a nightmare to figure out.


Also, a huge one they overlooked in general is meeting minimal health/environmental/safety standards. If the building is unhealthy, the additional residents cause a disproportionate burden on our health care system. If the building is an energy hog, the additional residents create disproportionate pollution per capita. If the building is unsafe (i.e. it'd collapse in an earthquake), there are obvious negative externalities there as well.

For health, I assume you’re talking about ventilation and hazardous construction materials. However, I imagine any developer would be very wary of class-action torts even without the regulations, so I doubt that building standards would slip much. Same for earthquake-proofing - I can’t imagine many new buyers wanting to live somewhere that didn’t meet some construction standard, and developers don’t want hundreds of civil suits against them. For these reasons, I doubt that these regulations have a very significant impact on pricing.

Energy use might be a problem without a proper Pigovian tax to correct the negative externalities... but that’s not limited to buildings, one could say that about nearly anything. It seems to me that limiting development because we have problems with our energy pricing is wrong - fix energy pricing instead.

6. The analysis is really too narrow in scope, since it mainly looks at Manhattan. For it to be more persuasive, it needs to study a market where regulations/NIMBYs have a much smaller effect on restricting building heights. Was it the case that HK had no height limits for a period of time? Yet I don't see any 500 floor residential buildings there... Maybe Dubai is something to look at?

Agreed. Glaeser has another paper where he analyzes this for many other US cities: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/pub/hier/2002/HIER1948.pdf

Unfortunately it only analyzes the time required to obtain permits, but I think that's probably an okay proxy for many zoning policies and it’s still worth a read IMO. I would really like to see something similar to the Manhattan paper for other cities though.

[quobobo]

I would state that no regulation would greatly increase affordability, but no because of the increased supply, more because of the reduced demand. The reason that makes Vancouver so expensive and desired is the ammenties provided. Seawalls built by developers, parks provided by them, public art, revitalization of ammenties (Capitol/Orphuem) DCLs paying for libraries, community centres etc. If we took away regulations and those things would no longer be required, the appeal of Vancouver would diminish over time. Leading to that extra supply and less demand to absorb it, prices would surely come down, but would it matter? Would we still want to live here?
We have created our own problem but it might just be better then the alternative.

I don't see why less regulations has to mean fewer amenities - simply pay for the same level of amenities with everyone's property taxes instead of charging developers. This way new residents will still pay their share of the cost for amenities, and the system will be much more transparent. It's easy to vote/lobby for amenities when it seems like someone else is paying the entire cost, but people might think twice when faced with the real costs.

Edit: a more sobering morning look with a clearer head tells me that the authors of the paper significantly underestimated social costs of building and other factors (as per my critiques in post #61 above), while at the same time, jlousa is saying I significantly underestimated construction costs. Putting 2 + 2 together, heights should only be a little bit taller, and I'm not certain prices would come down by very much at all. I say towers would definitely be a little bit taller, because developers today routinely build to height limits, so marginal costs can't be meeting marginal revenue already, but I'm closer to my original position of density only having a small impact on affordability than I was yesterday night.

Keep in mind that construction costs here are somewhat inflated because of all the Olympic projects.. but I don't know how significant that is. If someone here knows more about this, please fill me in.

Also, what about most of Vancouver outside the downtown core? I wouldn't be terribly surprised if towers downtown were somewhat close to their optimal heights, but if single-family homes are anywhere near optimal height/density in most parts of the city I would be shocked. I'm not sure how to calculate this, so any help would be appreciated. :)

[fever]

Parking would be built in any medium/high end or suburban building regardless of regulation, but for lower end buildings, especially ones that are close to transit or downtown, those regulations make housing much less affordable.

Are pools/pool tables/gyms actually required?

[Bert]

Very valid points on the unaccounted for positive externalities and the effect of litigation, although I'd tend to think common law litigation, even with insurance backing it, is only a fraction as effective as good regulation (i.e. see how many insurance bankruptcies there were in the aftermath of Katrina - I don't know how much people would be able to collect due to shoddy development in the aftermath of an earthquake, whether the developers were adequately insured or not, but at least regulation stands a better chance of preventing the shoddy development in the first place). The paper appears not to have accounted for positive externalities on purpose, to give an appearance of a really low-balled over-regulation figure: "we have taken every possible precaution to guard against our regulatory tax estimates from being biased upward".

For the value of natural light, there's probably some decent researched ways out there to measure its value, in terms of energy savings, physical/mental wellness benefits, etc.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if towers downtown were somewhat close to their optimal heights, but if single-family homes are anywhere near optimal height/density in most parts of the city I would be shocked. I'm not sure how to calculate this, so any help would be appreciated. :)At today's prices, and relatively low wood frame construction cost, I'd be fairly sure that many, many SFHs in Vancouver (and throughout the metro) would be replaced by the maximum height wood frame condo feasible if regulation allowed. But, of course, wood frame construction has a practical/technological height limit. Six storeys is the newly raised maximum in BC, and, as this story (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=4740509e-558f-43ab-b023-ff5cd155c774) claims (which actually also links density and affordability), 8 storeys is as high as it gets in Europe. After that maximum, you have to look into switching to more expensive concrete (or steel), if it would maximize profit.

As Glaeser's paper eludes to (what an excellent resource that site you provided is, by the way), the market for SFHs is not as straightforward as condos due to the need to separate land costs in order to get at the true regulatory burden. Still, as his paper shows, even in San Francisco, the hedonic value of land is only $4 psf. On the face of it, that figure seems ridiculously low, but their hedonics methodology seems decently OK. However, figures showing how strong the correlation was are not presented in the paper, which is worrisome to me; instead, we get a footnote which says: "All regression results are available upon request". The fact that small, decrepit, old houses in the right neighbourhoods of Vancouver sell for 7 figures seems bewildering with a maximum $4 psf land value. I would suggest that either the variables were insufficiently isolated, as the paper notes is possible, the unpublished regression results were actually quite weak, or, less likely, "Vancouver is different". That's why I didn't like the SFH part of the paper - there seems to be so much more to it... perhaps the fact that some cities have constraints on metro land supply is a factor?

Stepping back and assuming Glaeser is correct on land value though, it'd be completely negligible in the face of our house prices, so we can ignore it in our calculations. We can then apply the same general model as for highrises.

---
Starting with highrises, the profit maximization model equates marginal cost (MC) with marginal revenue (MR), MC = MR, which I specify as:
MCthirty * (1 + 0.004)^x = spsf * 0.64

where
0.64 = the saleable-to-built ratio
0.004 = the increase in MC for each floor above the 30th (that is, 0.4% per floor), as that's where this number applies
x = additional floors above 30 required to maximize profit (so, total floors = 30 + x)
MCthirty = marginal cost psf (includes all non-regulatory marginal costs: construction, marketing, sales, etc.) for the 30th floor ($)
spsf = saleable psf price ($)
- this assumes spsf stays constant as you move to higher floors (which it doesn't due to better views, but, for simplicity, I just assume that the increase in spsf would be exactly offset by the decrease in the saleable-to-built ratio)

We do a little natural log algebra to get the formula for highrises:
x = ln ( spsf * 0.64 / MCthirty ) / 0.003992

where 0.003992 = ln (1 + 0.004)

So, using my suburban example, with $500 per saleable square foot as the price (spsf), and a construction cost of $250 per square foot for the 30th floor (MCthirty), we get:

x = ln ( $500 * 0.64 / $250 ) / 0.003992 = 62

So the total # of floors to maximize profit is 30 + x = 92, which I fudged upwards slightly (these equations are hardly exact, anyway) to 100 for impact, justifying that by claiming a price slightly above $500 psf.

For wood frame construction, I have no idea at what rate marginal costs increase with additional floors. Let's just say 0.4% remains valid (though it's possibly too low). Saleable-to-built ratio? I don't know, I guess 75%, in some cases? Here's my stab at a wood frame construction equation (which is nowhere near as robust as the highrise one, not to say that even that one was necessarily particularly sound):
total floors = ln ( spsf * 0.75 / MC ) / 0.003992

Prices depend on neighbourhood. Let's say $750 psf in Kits (not sure if that's reasonable). I think the MC is maybe $200 psf there, for high quality.

In that case:
total floors = ln ( $750 * 0.75 / $200 ) / 0.003992 = 259 floors (which, as I said, is why many Vancouver homes would blast through wood frame limits if regulations allowed, even if this equation is quite poor and several of the figures used are unrealistic).

[fever]

I have one small issue with the math... i have limited experience with economics (but the math doesn't scare me)

1) If I've got this right, you're finding x, the floor over 30, where the cost-per-sf equals the revenue-per-sf. The cost increases by 0.4% per floor, but floors don't compound (much to the dismay of many forumers, i'm sure).

Replace MCthirty * (1 + 0.004)^x = spsf * 0.64 with MCthirty * (1 + 0.004x) = spsf * 0.64

with this change it turns out you don't need to fudge your result at all! x = 70

[Bert]

I have one small issue with the math... i have limited experience with economics (but the math doesn't scare me)

1) If I've got this right, you're finding x, the floor over 30, where the cost-per-sf equals the revenue-per-sf. The cost increases by 0.4% per floor, but floors don't compound (much to the dismay of many forumers, i'm sure).

Replace MCthirty * (1 + 0.004)^x = spsf * 0.64 with MCthirty * (1 + 0.004x) = spsf * 0.64

with this change it turns out you don't need to fudge your result at all! x = 70Well, that's good news!

I was reading it as each additional floor costs 0.4% more than the previous floor, rather than an additive 0.4% per floor. Working backwards, on a spreadsheet, with Glaeser's Marshall & Swift numbers in Table 3 on p. 44, he seems to have read it the same way I did, since his marginal cost estimates based on average costs match the compounded rather than additive numbers.

Regardless of which reading is more correct, it makes relatively little difference to the results (until we get into the multi-hundred floor skyscrapers, anyway). I say let's go with yours, since it's cleaner, and these are just quick and dirty estimates for unregulated building heights, anyway.

[deasine]

Look at Vancouver's density change:
http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/sightline-map-lower-mainland.gif

[quobobo]

Keep an eye on the spreading light yellow too...

Also, thanks for the great posts Bert and Fever! That really puts things into perspective. Assuming 70 floors is the right height, and even making a wild guess that necessary regulation and extra costs cut that down by 50% we're still limiting buildings to less than a tenth of their optimal height in a lot of places. That's the most depressing thing I've heard in a long while.

I really wish some local economist or think tank would put some effort into studying this - would put some more weight behind the claims and could possibly encourage some positive zoning changes. I'm not sure what else would, at this point.

[MistyMountainHop]

Those who haven't seen it might want to take a look at my essay on densification here (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3584939).

[Punkster]

While the 'yellow' areas on the map are expanding, I think that they are simply filling in the last developable areas in the gvrd. Those are all upland forested areas. Everything after that is in the ALR.

If you go to Surrey's website, they have pretty intense development plans to manage growth and sprawl and encourage town centres. I think the real rogue in the region is Maple Ridge who threatens to leave the regional district if it doesn't get its way. At least the others are making an effort. Although I was shocked to see the massive development and town centre Langley is planning around 208 and 72nd I believe it is?

[quobobo]

Also, a huge one they overlooked in general is meeting minimal health/environmental/safety standards. If the building is unhealthy, the additional residents cause a disproportionate burden on our health care system. If the building is an energy hog, the additional residents create disproportionate pollution per capita. If the building is unsafe (i.e. it'd collapse in an earthquake), there are obvious negative externalities there as well.

I just had a thought, isn't this already included in the marginal cost estimation already? I would imagine that it is, since it mostly incurs cost in the design and materials.

[mr.x]

EcoDensity here to stay
Despite Mayor Sam Sullivan's electoral loss, the plan to increase city densities has widespread support

Frances Bula, Vancouver Sun
Published: Thursday, June 12, 2008

VANCOUVER - For the past two years, EcoDensity has been ridiculed as a marketing ploy, an empty phrase for self-promotion by now-deposed Mayor Sam Sullivan, a giveaway to developers, and a recycled version of existing Vancouver policy.

But it was also praised as a much-needed and exciting kickstart for Vancouver in thinking about how to build a more sustainable city.

Today, the controversial initiative to increase density and boost environmental city-building is official city policy. And it's one no political party appears likely to dismantle, since the approval vote, except for a disputes on a couple of points about affordability, was unanimous.

One of its most popular elements, likely to become visible reality soon, is laneway housing, which may get rolling by early 2009.

Also, effective retroactive to March 13, all buildings being built under a rezoning and all large-scale projects have to meet the highest environmental standards in North America. And city planners now have authority to negotiate various kinds of affordable housing with the developer.

Coun. Raymond Louie, one of the three mayoral candidates for Vision Vancouver, says if elected, he'd ask planners to go back to a couple of items and put in defined goals for affordability in new major projects, rather than leaving it up to planners to bargain with developers.

But otherwise he'd demand no major changes.

Non-Partisan Association Coun. Peter Ladner, who defeated Sullivan for his party's mayoral nomination Sunday -- in part by saying EcoDensity had been too much about slogans -- said he's very happy with the program, which was finally approved on Tuesday.

He wouldn't ask for affordability targets. The one tweak he might make, if elected, would be to get planners to push measures related to affordable housing to the top of the action list.

Besides getting approval in its home town, EcoDensity is now a name and a plan that is admired in other cities.

Development consultant and council candidate Michael Geller was just in Ottawa talking to politicians and planners there about how to create more compact housing.

"They asked if they could use the name. They liked the ideas," Geller said, but he had to tell them it was trademarked.

That became a political hot potato when the mayor applied for a trademark under his name rather than the city's. Sullivan said he was just protecting the name for the city and the trademark was duly handed over, but the incident stuck in people's minds and the plan was sometimes referred to as EgoDensity.

Geller, one of the circle of people whose advice Sullivan sought before announcing EcoDensity at the World Urban Forum in 2006, said the way Sullivan's team launched and carried out the initiative created problems that worked against it.

Geller had pushed Sullivan to include a stronger emphasis on affordability. That advice went mostly by the wayside. Instead, Sullivan put his emphasis on saving the planet through density.

That brought out groups of protesters who had been quiet for years. Both irate west-siders and put-upon east-siders were convinced their neighbourhoods were to be overwhelmed by massive towers.

More than 150 people registered to argue passionately for and against in a record seven nights of public meetings.

Even planning director Brent Toderian, who devoted much of the last two years to developing and promoting the idea, admitted at one point that the controversy sometimes made it difficult to get people to talk about the actual ideas.

In the end, the plan attracted only about 30 protesters -- who wore black bands on their mouths to indicate they'd been silenced -- to the final meeting.:koko:

"It was an exhaustive process," says Toderian. "But we got to a draft that all the political parties and all stakeholders could see themselves in."

Geller is more blunt about the problematic process.

"The label was clever and it was a well-intentioned initiative," he said. "But it led to a lot more harm than good.

"There was a great deal of misunderstanding and a lot of unnecessary fear," said Geller, who has been developing the UniverCity project at Simon Fraser University. He pioneered ideas like creating locked-off rooms in condos so that apartment dwellers could help pay the mortgage by renting out space as homeowners do with their basement suites.

In the end, both Geller and Ladner think the plan pushed the city into more aggressive action than it might have under the status quo.

Louie disagreed, saying if Sullivan hadn't bogged the city down in political controversy and endless process, the city might have moved faster to new environmental building standards, laneway housing and new forms of secondary suites.

fbula@png.canwest.com

[Bert]

I just had a thought, isn't this already included in the marginal cost estimation already? I would imagine that it is, since it mostly incurs cost in the design and materials.
A million years later (sorry, been swamped lately)... but yeah, you're probably right about that one - much of those would be absorbed in higher required costs of design/materials.

[twoNeurons]

Great density map, deasine. I think on the whole, Burnaby is more dense than Vancouver. I'd rather see all dark orange, like Burnaby, than a few red spots like Vancouver. And this is despite a lot of Burnaby having larger lots. However, if you drive around Burnaby, one thing that you'll notice is that in neighborhoods with SFH, there is a complex of townhouses, or a bunch of low-rise walk-ups interspersed.

[squeezied]

[SIZE="5"][B]One of its most popular elements, likely to become visible reality soon, is laneway housing, which may get rolling by early 2009.

this is gonna be pretty cool. i know the row house developement on 33rd and cambie will incorporate laneway housing

[djh]

Look at Vancouver's density change:
http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/sightline-map-lower-mainland.gif

Source?

[Bert]

The watermark points to the Sightline Institute (http://www.sightline.org/maps/animated_maps/sprawl-and-smart-growth-in-greater-vancouver-bc) (slightly different version at link).

[jlousa]

Figured I'd revive this thread from the dead. Stumbled upon this when cleaning my inbox. Should really do that more often. Anyways it's loaded with great info and well worth the read.

Ecodensity brochure by busbyperkins+will (http://www.busbyperkinswill.ca/media/files/BusbyonEcoDensityBrochure.pdf)

[deasine]

^Great read. Interesting to see a comparison of the tonnes of CO2 per person and I'm shocked to see Portland and San Francisco pretty high up on the list considering they are the "greener" American cities... Calgary = super high too...

Something random just came up in my head: I'm surprised that we still don't have row houses yet...

[Delirium]

thought this was an interesting read. not because another American city is looking to Vancouver for urban planning advice but the fact that a city the size of Dallas (metro pop. ~4.5mil) ONLY has 5,000 people living downtown :haha:

Dallas Studies Vancouver's Urban Design Success
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28781994/

Dallas city leaders are looking at how other cities have successfully lured more residents to their downtowns.

Dallas leaders have said they want more of the city to be like Uptown, with businesses and transit within walking distance of large residential and office buildings.

About 5,000 people currently live in downtown Dallas, but more reside in surrounding Uptown neighborhoods. Dallas also competes for residents with North Texas suburbs, and the region's intense growth is expected to continue.

City Hall compared the Dallas' urban design rules to those in cities such as Vancouver, British Columbia, which grew its downtown with dense urban development.

Vancouver doubled the population of its downtown area to nearly 120,000 in just 15 years.

"This is about actually designing the city again, rather than see it happen by accident," said former Vancouver planning director Larry Beasley.

Beasley, who is now a private planning consultant, told the Dallas Council on Wednesday that Vancouver encouraged developers to build extremely high-density projects that would return high profits.

In return, the city made strict demands for high-quality materials and amenities such as broad sidewalks and parks, which the city could not afford on its own.

"We look for some of those costs -- some of those amenity costs -- to be shared with developers," Beasley said. "And the key to all this is not to force people into this living circumstance, but to make it a preferred choice for them."

Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert said he wants Dallas to consider other cities' success as it charts its future.

"If we don't bring those ideas here and push ourselves to think a little beyond where we are today, then we're going to limit ourselves, and we shouldn't do that," he said.

Councilwoman Angela Hunt said Wednesday's daylong session, which focused on urban design, is an example of Dallas' dedication toward accomplishing what cities such as Vancouver have done.

"They have created remarkable growth, remarkable wealth and remarkable development," she said. "We can do that too, if we have the commitment."

However, some of the Canadian measures could be a hard sell in Texas, Dallas Planning Director Theresa O'Donnell said.

"Texas is a strong property rights state, so that’s a big shift," O'Donnell said.

The Dallas City Council took no formal action at Wednesday's briefing.

[djmk]

Basements in Single Family Areas

Providing more affordable housing choices throughout the City is a top priority of Council. Facilitating basements in houses helps to meet this goal by providing more opportunities for rental secondary suites in single family areas.

On June 10, 2008, Vancouver City Council instructed staff to report back on "Enabling basements that can accommodate suites …", as part of EcoDensity Action C-6: "More Options for Rental Secondary Suites."

Vancouver residents have told us that single family zoning does not permit a suitable size house that also includes a full basement. As a result, many houses have either a partial basement or no basement at all, especially on smaller lots.

In response to these concerns, the Planning Department is proposing an option for single-family zoning that would permit additional floor area in the basement of a house. This option could also make it easier to add a second floor to an existing one-storey house.

To learn more about this proposal for single family zoning, please come to one of our open houses:
Date: Tuesday March 3rd
Time: 4:00 - 7:30 pm
Location: Sunset Community Centre, 6810 Main Street (at East 52nd Avenue)

Date: Thursday, March 5th
Time: 4:00 - 7:30 pm
Location: Renfrew Park Community Centre, 2929 East 22nd Avenue (east of Renfrew Street)

Date: Monday, March 9th
Time: 4:00 - 7:30 pm
Location: Kerrisdale Community Centre, 5851 West Boulevard (at West 42nd Avenue)

For more information regarding these open houses email ecodensity@vancouver.ca or call 604.871.6302

http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/content.php?id=50

[fever]

I don't think this will have much benefit. It's increasing the density of auto-dependent parts of the city when they should be trying to concentrate density in certain areas near transit.

I think they should upzone some areas to allow rowhousing/apartments and to allow bigger apartment buildings along arterials (C-2). Most single-family areas, especially on the west side away from transit, should be left as they are.

[crazyjoeda]

Most single-family areas, especially on the west side away from transit, should be left as they are.
What's wrong with Transit on the Westside? The Westside is very desirable and buses run along 4th, Broadway, Arbutus, McDonald, Dunbar 41st, 49th and other major streets frequently.

[fever]

There's nothing wrong with transit on the west side.

The entire area of the city southwest of Oak and 16th, except for pockets in Kerrisdale, Marpole, and a short strip in Dunbar, is basically high end suburbia. It's nice, low-density, auto-dependent, and full of nimby's. It's good the way it is. It fills a need for executive housing close to the city centre.

Increasing density uniformly in this area, which is what a blanket increase in the number of secondary suites will do, will make for more traffic, less parking, and other typical, inane nimby complaints, without really strengthening any of the nearby strips. And politically, I'm concerned it'll bring out unnecessary opposition to worthwhile changes under the eco-density banner, like increasing densities along arterials and in parts of east van.

[raggedy13]

I think more basement suites in the West Side is a brilliant idea. It is perfect for UBC students, most of whom wouldn't be using a car. It would also add some much needed rental housing to the city in general. The West Side is only auto-dependent because it is full of people who prefer to drive because of their income bracket. Other then that the transit opportunities are great in the area (though there is always room for improvement) and one can easily live and get around without a car in the West Side.

I'm still all for increasing density along arterials and at transit nodes etc but why not increase density in single family housing areas while we're at it. The demand is there long-term and higher densities can support improved transit, higher retail density, amenities, etc. I can't imagine basement suite renters adding all that much to traffic and parking issues anyways. Most renters I know don't even own a car, myself included.

[crazyjoeda]

Fever I can see some of your points but I disagree with most of what you said. Bus transit north of 16th AVE is much better than suburban areas of Metro Vancouver. Most people I know who live in basement suites in Vancouver don't have car. By North American standards most of the area you described is fairly high density. Finally, although there are exceptions the majority of the people who live on the West side are not super rich, either they purchased their home many years ago before it was expensive or they purchased it more recently, have a large mortgage and could use rental income. Metro Vancouver has high end suburbia: its called West Vancouver and White Rock.

Cities should ignore nimby's that only have self serving interests.

[flight_from_kamakura]

re: laneway housing.

i know almost everyone on this forum agrees with almost every part of the ecodensity plan, and particularly laneway housing, but i'd like to give a personal example/rant (lol) of how great an idea this really is.

without going into too much detail, i've been trying to get a small building project off the ground in montreal, and aside from all the usual zoning issues surrounding height and occupancy (which are absolutely maddening in montreal), the major issues that i've been wrestling with are lot coverage and rear entrance. the sum of it is that unless you have the good fortune to have yourself a property that has a grandfathered laneway entrance (in which case, you'll probably have heritage and/or reno-to-code issues that make building out unprofitable), it's absolutely impossible on the plateau to build out the back half of a property without building to a front entrance. and then try to get approval to reorient the building so as to get that back half built out with a front entrance to rear suites - ho ho ho, then it's a shit-storm of permits and lot coverage-based denials and the dreaded heritage panels and all that. basically, current zoning around there makes it very very difficult to densify existing properties in montreal's most central non-core hood, which is an obvious outrage. seriously, if you're ever walking along and you see a guy adding a level or whatever, you just know it's for his personal use, because it's a total money loser. (either that, or you admire/rue his luck at having found one of the very very rare lots where the patchwork zoning allows for building out.) it's enough to break a man.

the reasons for these sorts of rules are pretty obvious - water, city services, etc. make it bothersome to the guys sitting in the offices (not to mention preserving the neighbors' view of the scuzzy lane in the back!). and montreal's had some pretty bad experiences with villainous greeks or anglos coming in and gutting charming little places and replacing them with ugly, value-maximizing boxes. but, done with sensitivity to context and form, these really are an insanely good sort of densification - there's no better way to maintain the integrity of a hood. alas, no joke, speaking to that point, in a recent meeting with a borough planner, the guy actually flat-out said that the plateau is already too dense!

all of this to say that even though the laneway housing in vancouver will only be rental, and won't allow for lateral lot consolidation, and will have a maximum height of 12 feet or whatever, it's a cheap and simple and clever way of densifying neighborhoods (with all the attendant benefits there), and it opens up loads of options to small-scale developers (!).

sullivan may have been a creep and a weirdo and unfit for public office and all that but, by god, he was right on this one.

[jlousa]

Laneway housing is good for certain neighbourhoods and not so good for others and should still be looked at on a block to block basis, personally I prefer infill housing, but both have their place. What I'm greatfully for though is that they took those measures and applied them citywide, just like they are doing with the new basement regulations.

[jlousa]

Big week next week at city hall,

Secondary suites
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090721/documents/phea5summary.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090721/documents/phea5.PDF

Laneway housing

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090721/documents/phea6summary.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090721/documents/phea6.PDF

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090721/documents/phea6memo1_re_by-law_.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090721/documents/phea6memo2_re_guidelines.pdf

6 story wood buildings

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

Additional water conservation measures

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20090721/documents/p4.pdf

Personally I'm not a fan at all of the Secondary suites in apartments, but I'm all for laneway housing.
The 5-6 story wood building are also fine in my books, they list the cost as 11% lower then building with steel/concrete but I'd venture the difference is actually closer to 20%. The COV is making a couple of changes from the BC code but they aren't really a big deal.
The water conservation measures are great, personally I'd love to see them go even further as we are one of the biggest wasters of water on the planet even though we get plenty of rain. It's amazing that even today we waste as much water on our lawns then we do on bathing and washing our clothes combined.

[Spork]

Weren't 5-6 story wood buildings made illegal because nearly all of them collapsed in some California earthquakes? I am too old to remember, but this is what my friend tells me.

[jlousa]

Wood buildings if built properly can be built to withstand earthquakes just as well as any building if not better as wood is flexible. The major issue is fire, other issues like shrinkage can be dealt with.

[Architype]

Wood buildings if built properly can be built to withstand earthquakes just as well as any building if not better as wood is flexible. The major issue is fire, other issues like shrinkage can be dealt with.

Shrinkage and settling are issues (causing sloping of floors) in 3 & 4 storey wood buildings, and I think in a 6 storey wood building it would be even worse.

[mrjauk]

Q: "When does a Prius have the same environmental impact as a Hummer?"

A: "The 95 percent of the time it’s parked."

A very interesting article (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010266.html). Here are some quotes:

Most people don't spend time thinking about parking spaces unless they're looking for one. But these 9' by 18' rectangles of urban real estate have a vast impact on North American communities. They affect the economy, land use patterns, the design of cities and even individual lifestyles.

A small group of urban planners, economists, and community advocates are committed to changing the way Americans think about and plan for parking. Their claim is bold and powerful: minimum parking requirements should be considered one of the foremost contributors to suburban sprawl and the hollowing out of urban cores in the United States (in addition to the usual culprits of white flight, FHA mortgage redlining, and the interstate highway system)...

...Urban economist Donald Shoup argues that parking requirements are one of the costliest hidden subsidies in US cities today. Shoup, who teaches urban planning at UCLA and authored the recent book, The High Cost of Free Parking, is one of the leaders in the flight to reclaim cities for people, not parking. His writings on parking and planning have fanned such passion that he even has a Facebook fan-group, “The Shoupistas.” Though dense (at 600 pages), his book is a thorough, and hard-hitting analysis of where cars spend 95 percent of their time -- going nowhere.

I understand that in our society the automobile is a necessary form of transportation. I own one, which now that I think about it, is used about 3 hours out of the week at most 3/(7*24)=1.8% of the week. But I get frustrated when automobile absolutists fail to (or don't want to) understand how much automobile driving has been subsidized.

I'd be willing to forget about the vast public monies that have gone to subsidize the automobile at the expense of public and other forms of non-automobile traffic over the years if we could get an even split of future public monies (at least in the Lower Mainland) between the two.

The free parking that Americans love isn’t really ‘free’ at all. A recent parking garage project in New Haven, Conn., for example, cost more than $30 million for almost 1,200 spaces – that’s more than $25,000 per space. If you were to finance it using a mortgage, the actual cost would be over $40,000 per space. This breaks down to roughly $135 a month, or $1,600 a year per space – not including externalities like the air pollution and congestion created by increased trips drawn by cheap parking. Even when garages and meters charge for parking, they rarely charge the real value of the parking space. (In Vauban, by contrast, drivers must purchase a parking space in the garages at $40,000 each.) All this amounts to a massive subsidy. Shoup calculates that in 2002 the total subsidy just for off-street parking was between $127 and $374 billion (for comparison, the budget for national defense that year was $349 billion).

Who pays for this? Everyone. The cost of building all that parking is reflected in higher rents, more expensive shopping and dining, and higher costs of home-ownership. Those who don’t drive or own cars thus subsidize those who do.

[quobobo]

The High Cost of Free Parking is great, and surprisingly readable for an academic text. There's a copy at one of the UBC libraries if anyone is interested (but I doubt it'll be available often since that was just mentioned on kottke.org and a bunch of other places).