[dennis1]

Many say Vancouver has maxed out land for population growth. I thought so too, but looking at these maps, I have to disagree.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/DATA/pop/maps/RDMaps2006/RD15.gif

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/DATA/pop/maps/RDMaps2006/RD09.gif

My Question is, why can't the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver develop the electoral districts for homes? Maybe it would drive home prices down?

[Chikinlittle]

Why would you want to do that? There's pristine wilderness there firstly - most of it mountainous and not really possibly to develop. Secondly, you would also be potentially compromising the quality of our watersheds. Thirdly, you want more sprawl? We should be encouraging density and sustainability.

[quobobo]

Why would you want to do that? There's pristine wilderness there firstly - most of it mountainous and not really possibly to develop. Secondly, you would also be potentially compromising the quality of our watersheds. Thirdly, you want more sprawl? We should be encouraging density and sustainability.

Uh, yeah, this. I don't see why we should spread out further when most of Vancouver proper is still zoned for freestanding houses.

[Alex Mackinnon]

You do realize just how mountainous most of this terrain is right? The amount of geological engineering that would have to occur is huge. There already is a lot of construction quite high up the mountains, but its mostly in places where the land value is high enough to justify putting stuff up there. You're never going to be able to develop something like Westwood Plateau cheaply.

[mr.x]

The area highlighted as "Greater Vancouver A" is a water reservoir...it's where we get our clean water. I think not.

[Cypherus]

There is no feasible way to develop into the Garibaldi range or the north shore mountainous region. Land use policies will still be based on what is practical for regional development.

[dennis1]

The area highlighted as "Greater Vancouver A" is a water reservoir...it's where we get our clean water. I think not.

Interesting. I guess thats why only 2000 people live there.

[dennis1]

so the best vancouver can hope for is 2.8 million in 2020?

[Distill3d]

Some of that wilderness to the north of Vancouver is protected watershed. I'm not sure further northern development is possible.

[Canadian Mind]

so the best vancouver can hope for is 2.8 million in 2020?

Translink says 3.2 by 2040, so 2.8 would come later than 2020 based on that.

Pers I think the region will be over 3 million by the late 2020s or 2030s.

And if Annmore would stop trying to be the small town in a large city, you could fit several thousand folks up there. I can see what they want, and why, but wong part of the valley for that. Northern Mission and North Eastern Maple ridge are the places to live in the secluded mountain paradise.

[djmk]

Translink says 3.2 by 2040, so 2.8 would come later than 2020 based on that.

Pers I think the region will be over 3 million by the late 2020s or 2030s.



I do not think vancouver will ever reach 3 million.

1) population is getting older fast. immigration into canada is about 250,000 per year. This is not enough to cover those who be dying from old age.

2) the birth rate here in vancouver, as well as in canada and the rest of the world is in steep decline.

3) people from around the world will eventually stop moving to other countries in large numbers. large amounts of people move en mass because of war, instability, economic reasons. As the worlds economies mature and more people around the world get mortgages, and standard of livings increase, we will see less people moving. think of europe after the war and now.

4) more competing nations looking for migrants and cheap labour. Japan, Russia, Italy and dozens of other countries that used to export people will be importing them soon.

5) Vancouver is too expensive.

[Canadian Mind]

I do not think vancouver will ever reach 3 million.

1) population is getting older fast. immigration into canada is about 250,000 per year. This is not enough to cover those who be dying from old age.

2) the birth rate here in vancouver, as well as in canada and the rest of the world is in steep decline.

3) people from around the world will eventually stop moving to other countries in large numbers. large amounts of people move en mass because of war, instability, economic reasons. As the worlds economies mature and more people around the world get mortgages, and standard of livings increase, we will see less people moving. think of europe after the war and now.

4) more competing nations looking for migrants and cheap labour. Japan, Russia, Italy and dozens of other countries that used to export people will be importing them soon.

5) Vancouver is too expensive.

Your reasons make sense. However, the trends indicate population growth is increasing, not decreasing, despite your above mentioned factors.

[dennis1]

Translink says 3.2 by 2040, so 2.8 would come later than 2020 based on that.

Pers I think the region will be over 3 million by the late 2020s or 2030s.

And if Annmore would stop trying to be the small town in a large city, you could fit several thousand folks up there. I can see what they want, and why, but wong part of the valley for that. Northern Mission and North Eastern Maple ridge are the places to live in the secluded mountain paradise.

Cool. Thanks for the info.

[allan_kuan]

Interesting...

Surely, we can not develop on areas that are already considered watersheds. That includes the entire Electoral Area A.

However, I might give a bit more leeway in areas that are not in watersheds if the developments demonstrate the following:

GENERAL:
- it is well connected to a major city centre with roads,
- it uses 50% or less resources than average, or is net zero,
- it uses mass transit as a substantial minority transport (say < 20% of residents use transit),
- is designed in a manner that is land-efficient (e.g. medium to high density, roads arranged in grids, no or few suburbs type road patterns)
- protects major streams with 40 m buffer zones

RESIDENTIAL:
- it has at least one community centre, two schools, four small parks, and one large park included in the development and within 4 km of any building
- it has a local commercial component that can serve the community with basic necessities

COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL:
- it has a local residential component to supply the workplace with jobs
- it has good road, transit, and rail connections


Sounds reasonable?

[red-paladin]

Here are some facts from Statscan:
Canada's population at the current date is estimated to be 34,018,056.

Canada's population growth slightly higher than in the United States

Between July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006, Canada's population increased at the rate of 10.0 people for every 1,000 in the population. This rate was near the average of 10.2 per 1,000 seen since the beginning of the millennium.

Recently, Canada's growth rate has been slightly higher than in the United States. In 2004/2005, the last year for which statistics were available, the United States increased at a rate of 9.3 per 1,000, compared to 9.6 in Canada.

Canada's rate of natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) estimated at 3.3 per 1,000 in 2005/2006, is similar to the previous year. Natural increase has been in a long-term decline since the beginning of the 1990s, although it has stabilized since 2000.

On the other hand, international migration gained in importance and has accounted for more than 60% of Canada's population growth since 2001. Comparatively, it represented 46.2% of the country's demographic growth from 1990 to 1995.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/clock-horloge/edu06f_0001-eng.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060927/dq060927a-eng.htm

[dennis1]

Interesting...

Surely, we can not develop on areas that are already considered watersheds. That includes the entire Electoral Area A.

However, I might give a bit more leeway in areas that are not in watersheds if the developments demonstrate the following:

GENERAL:
- it is well connected to a major city centre with roads,
- it uses 50% or less resources than average, or is net zero,
- it uses mass transit as a substantial minority transport (say < 20% of residents use transit),
- is designed in a manner that is land-efficient (e.g. medium to high density, roads arranged in grids, no or few suburbs type road patterns)
- protects major streams with 40 m buffer zones

RESIDENTIAL:
- it has at least one community centre, two schools, four small parks, and one large park included in the development and within 4 km of any building
- it has a local commercial component that can serve the community with basic necessities

COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL:
- it has a local residential component to supply the workplace with jobs
- it has good road, transit, and rail connections


Sounds reasonable?

This actually makes sense. This could be done in the fraser valley.

[Zassk]

Population growth is indeed slowing worldwide from a peak in the 1960's, and total population will settle out around 10 billion. However, the remaining growth will continue to occur in places that cannot really sustain such numbers - places like Africa and India. Those people will continue to immigrate to places like Canada that can support them, as long as immigration continues to be allowed (which I hope is always).

Even after world population stabilizes, around 2100, there will continue to be immigration from overpopulated countries to places with available capacity like Canada. Vancouver and the rest of Canada will continue to grow for a long time, long after the population curve levels out. We have been a nation of immigrants up to now, and we will continue to be one. There is no reason to think Vancouver will stop growing before 3 million, unless there's some dramatic shift in world politics.

I would guess that in the very long term (150 years from now), as the population settles evenly around the globe, most cities in the world will have 10 million people, and those constrained by geography like Vancouver might settle at 5 million.

[djmk]

Population growth is indeed slowing worldwide from a peak in the 1960's, and total population will settle out around 10 billion. However, the remaining growth will continue to occur in places that cannot really sustain such numbers - places like Africa and India. Those people will continue to immigrate to places like Canada that can support them, as long as immigration continues to be allowed (which I hope is always).

Even after world population stabilizes, around 2100, there will continue to be immigration from overpopulated countries to places with available capacity like Canada. Vancouver and the rest of Canada will continue to grow for a long time, long after the population curve levels out. We have been a nation of immigrants up to now, and we will continue to be one. There is no reason to think Vancouver will stop growing before 3 million, unless there's some dramatic shift in world politics.

I would guess that in the very long term (150 years from now), as the population settles evenly around the globe, most cities in the world will have 10 million people, and those constrained by geography like Vancouver might settle at 5 million.

Canadian immigration policies do not easily allow for poorer migrants from India and china or even mexico. Canadian policy is geared towards family reunification and those with money to invest. Furthermore, it is really hard enter canada. Flights from Africa and India are long and expensive and it really is hard to get on a boat or plane without the proper documentation. Besides, there are so many easier places to get to within their own county, within their own continent or europe.

and there has been a dramitic shift in world politics. It might not seem like it but war is way down and economics and democracy is way up from the 1960's. There has been such a shift that there has been a reverse migration of many people from hong kong back to hong kong after it was shown things were more stable after takeover.

and furthermore, this population boom vancouver saw is also the result of intra-provincial migration. As the resource industry took a hit, people and whole towns moved to the lower mainland. i think this will reverse once the world wide economy improves and prices in vancouver become so expensive that pemberton looks nice again.

my guess - 3 million to 3.2 million in 20 years followed by a steep decline. Granted immigration stays at 250,000 people per year.

[dennis1]

I still think Surrey and Langley should at least fill out.

[allan_kuan]

Disagree. The development should be confined somewhat to slow down the loss of farmland.

[SpikePhanta]

IMHO I would like it to go like this in order in terms of growing population

1.Density in Vancouver,Burnaby,Richmond ect. hopefully Surrey goes in Density direction.
2.Spread down to Delta, and east to Maple Ridge ect.
3. Go a bit north but make sure it is economically viable and doesn't damage our water supply.
4.Go east take FarmLand if you dont want to follow the 3 above reasons.

I'm a big fan of the Local Diet and Farmland in BC and Fraser Valley IMO is precious and we should try to preserve it.

Also feel free to point out some flaws in my post, I'm only 15 so yea

[Canadian Mind]

IMHO I would like it to go like this in order in terms of growing population

1.Density in Vancouver,Burnaby,Richmond ect. hopefully Surrey goes in Density direction.
2.Spread down to Delta, and east to Maple Ridge ect.
3. Go a bit north but make sure it is economically viable and doesn't damage our water supply.
4.Go east take FarmLand if you dont want to follow the 3 above reasons.

I'm a big fan of the Local Diet and Farmland in BC and Fraser Valley IMO is precious and we should try to preserve it.

Also feel free to point out some flaws in my post, I'm only 15 so yea


ALR (http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/)

[SpikePhanta]

ALR (http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/)

I'm quite aware of the ALC, but I mean those farms in Delta/Richmond wont last forever, sadly. And the ALR is being threatened by Urbanization. And I remember reading that in recent years some of the land designated for farm was changed to residential and commercial use. Oh and Golf courses -.-

I'm not sure if the ALC exited when farms disappeared in Vancouver and Burnaby.

But hopefully in the years coming Vancouver will do it's best to be dense.

[mrjauk]

I'm quite aware of the ALC, but I mean those farms in Delta/Richmond wont last forever, sadly. And the ALR is being threatened by Urbanization. And I remember reading that in recent years some of the land designated for farm was changed to residential and commercial use. Oh and Golf courses -.-

I'm not sure if the ALC exited when farms disappeared in Vancouver and Burnaby.

But hopefully in the years coming Vancouver will do it's best to be dense.

I agree, Vancouver should be densified first. I've mentioned this in other threads, but I think that we should be looking at row houses in many parts of Vancouver proper--especially on the East side where I'd do anything to get rid of those hideous "Vancouver specials."

Here's an example of some row houses in Richmond, Virginia. Each house is about 25ft. in width, with a relatively generous back yard. There is about 1000 sq. ft. per floor.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3576846719_b335114ff8.jpg

[jlousa]

We need to remember that Vancouver/region is dense because of the ALR. Getting rid of it won't do us any favours on an urban front.

[Lee_Haber8]

If the existing built up area of Vancouver had a moderate density (rowhouse apartments on every street) it would have a population of 15 million.

There is a long way to go before any talk of developing more green land.

[SpikePhanta]

I agree, Vancouver should be densified first. I've mentioned this in other threads, but I think that we should be looking at row houses in many parts of Vancouver proper--especially on the East side where I'd do anything to get rid of those hideous "Vancouver specials."

Here's an example of some row houses in Richmond, Virginia. Each house is about 25ft. in width, with a relatively generous back yard. There is about 1000 sq. ft. per floor.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3576846719_b335114ff8.jpg
I would like to see this thing implemented, also that picture is very nice!

[flight_from_kamakura]

^ this is what most of pre-merger toronto looks like outside of the very core and the waterfront.

[SpikePhanta]

^ this is what most of pre-merger toronto looks like outside of the very core and the waterfront.

Also to a lesser extent Montreal.

[cabotp]

If the existing built up area of Vancouver had a moderate density (rowhouse apartments on every street) it would have a population of 15 million.

There is a long way to go before any talk of developing more green land.

You may actually be surprised. The density level in south east Van of the actual city where you see the typical detached homes. Although there is the odd apartment building. Actually has a density level of about 5,000-6,000/kmsq. Which if you are comparing to the density of other cities in north america. Puts is near the top.

Of course the areas around Broadway are around 10,000 and downtown is around 20,000 on average.

As the price of land gets higher the region will densify. As more people either build suites in there house or more people move into condos as that is all they may afford.

I'm not saying the region can't be denser and I would love to see it.

I personally don't see a need to eat into the ALR in Richmond and Delta. Biggest reason is with the whole flood plain problem. Also what if the oceans start to rise do to the melting ice. To start building homes in that area would be crazy. Although I realize people already live there. I just don't want to promote the idea of living there.

Speaking of ALR. Does anyone know the sqkm size of it in Surrey. I'm trying to figure out the density of Surrey by not including the ALR.

[huenthar]

Other than river flooding and sea level rise issues, the main reason not to develop further land in Richmond/Delta is earthquakes. The ground is all river sediment lacking the structural strength of bedrock and simply will not hold building foundations in a big quake, which is inevitable in this region - sooner or later it will come. Plus, river floodplains and deltas like in Richmond/Delta make such excellent farmland, it's really dumb to throw away such a valuable resource just for more cheap development land. Especially since the regional population is growing, and thus demand for food; and growing food locally makes great ecological sense, so the demand for specifically local food ought to grow even more in the future... Frankly, we can use all the farmland we can get!

IMO essentially all future population growth should be directed within current urban/suburban areas. There really is sooo much room in Vancouver/Burnaby/New West/Tricities/Surrey for infill... and in the other town centres as well... there's no reason to take out ALR land for housing development, except for greed...

[SpikePhanta]

Other than river flooding and sea level rise issues, the main reason not to develop further land in Richmond/Delta is earthquakes. The ground is all river sediment lacking the structural strength of bedrock and simply will not hold building foundations in a big quake, which is inevitable in this region - sooner or later it will come. Plus, river floodplains and deltas like in Richmond/Delta make such excellent farmland, it's really dumb to throw away such a valuable resource just for more cheap development land. Especially since the regional population is growing, and thus demand for food; and growing food locally makes great ecological sense, so the demand for specifically local food ought to grow even more in the future... Frankly, we can use all the farmland we can get!

IMO essentially all future population growth should be directed within current urban/suburban areas. There really is sooo much room in Vancouver/Burnaby/New West/Tricities/Surrey for infill... and in the other town centres as well... there's no reason to take out ALR land for housing development, except for greed...

Great post!

And the bolded part it is indeed greed, I remember a story where they built a huge mansion in chiliwack on a parcel of land that was originally ALR land!

[PROSTSHOCKER]

I think we'd be fine if from the fringe of the DTES to New West was "manhattanized".
It's roughly the same distance between downtown vancouver to New west as it is midtown to the tip of Manhattan. Densify like mad along the routes of the Expo line and millenium line.

Anything over that? we still have the tricities, Surrey's non-ALR lands, north van, and Langley city even.

[twoNeurons]

You may actually be surprised. The density level in south east Van of the actual city where you see the typical detached homes. Although there is the odd apartment building. Actually has a density level of about 5,000-6,000/kmsq. Which if you are comparing to the density of other cities in north america. Puts is near the top.


True, but row housing would net higher standards of living.

Instead of two houses with $3500 mortgages and two mortgage helper suites of $800 each, you'd have three or four row houses, each with, say, $1700 mortgages.

Families could afford to live there without becoming unwilling landlords.

[jlousa]

There have been rowhouses built in Vancouver recently, and the mortgages on them nowhere near $1700. The prices will be what the market will bear, no more and no less.

[cabotp]

True, but row housing would net higher standards of living.

Instead of two houses with $3500 mortgages and two mortgage helper suites of $800 each, you'd have three or four row houses, each with, say, $1700 mortgages.

Families could afford to live there without becoming unwilling landlords.

I do agree row housing would get rid of the idea of having to be a landlord. I'd even say that the row housing should be two story or possibly 3 stories. With each floor being a different dwelling.

The problem is even if you rezone an area for row housing. Your not going to suddenly see all the houses knocked down and these new buildings put up. Unless of course you want to be the person to kick people out into the street. And usually while you may see 1 or 2 houses in a block or two go on sale once ever 2-3 years. You never see a cluster of homes that will go on sale.

[SpikePhanta]

I do agree row housing would get rid of the idea of having to be a landlord. I'd even say that the row housing should be two story or possibly 3 stories. With each floor being a different dwelling.

The problem is even if you rezone an area for row housing. Your not going to suddenly see all the houses knocked down and these new buildings put up. Unless of course you want to be the person to kick people out into the street. And usually while you may see 1 or 2 houses in a block or two go on sale once ever 2-3 years. You never see a cluster of homes that will go on sale.

I've seen it several times happens for townhouses in Burnaby!

[delboy]

I do agree row housing would get rid of the idea of having to be a landlord. I'd even say that the row housing should be two story or possibly 3 stories. With each floor being a different dwelling.

The problem is even if you rezone an area for row housing. Your not going to suddenly see all the houses knocked down and these new buildings put up. Unless of course you want to be the person to kick people out into the street. And usually while you may see 1 or 2 houses in a block or two go on sale once ever 2-3 years. You never see a cluster of homes that will go on sale.

While there are town homes in vancouver, there are no row homes, the distinction being that you own the land, tend to be bigger, not strata, and may or may not share walls. Row houses are actually illegal in vancouver due to there being no "party wall agreement" allowing buildings to share walls without being strata. There is a move underway to change this and it is expected to happen. There is also a project underway at 33 rd and Cambie where 3 row homes are being built on a 80 foot wide lot. these will be the first such homes that are not strata.

I think the west side and east side will eventually see more row houses as a viable alternative to condo, sfh and townhomes - great for smaller families and excellent eco density. If this model becomes more common, residential areas could become three times as dense at they already are.

[twoNeurons]

There have been rowhouses built in Vancouver recently, and the mortgages on them nowhere near $1700. The prices will be what the market will bear, no more and no less.

Of course, those were just example numbers, but yeah, the market, along with location, size, amenities and build quality decides value. I'd expect row housing in kitsilano to fetch for much more money than Hastings and Nanaimo, for example. I'd also expect 30' wide row houses to go for more than 20' ones.

The point was that I feel that the ROI on row houses should be lucrative enough to go through the effort.

[cabotp]

While there are town homes in vancouver, there are no row homes, the distinction being that you own the land, tend to be bigger, not strata, and may or may not share walls. Row houses are actually illegal in vancouver due to there being no "party wall agreement" allowing buildings to share walls without being strata. There is a move underway to change this and it is expected to happen. There is also a project underway at 33 rd and Cambie where 3 row homes are being built on a 80 foot wide lot. these will be the first such homes that are not strata.

I think the west side and east side will eventually see more row houses as a viable alternative to condo, sfh and townhomes - great for smaller families and excellent eco density. If this model becomes more common, residential areas could become three times as dense at they already are.

Assuming the "party wall agreement" were to ever come into affect. We can assume than that if a townhouse/row house development is being built. That if the owner of an individual unit owns all floors in that unit, whether there be 1 2 or 3 floors. Then it would be easy for them to also own the land beneath the unit and both in front and behind the unit. Property lines would of course be based on the where the units join together. As well as front and back lines based on zoning. This would be like taking the detached homes in a block. Narrowing them down by a few feet and then slapping them together.

The problem is what happens in a townhouse/row house development. When each floor in a unit is owned by a different owner. So you could have a 2 or 3 floor unit. Each floor has a different owner. Are we forced in this situation of using the condo idea and the land is then joint shared. Which of course means there are strata fees and all the things you can and can not do with your unit.

[Stingray2004]

Interesting discussion vis-a-vis "row houses". I was not aware that they could be built in Vancouver proper until I drove by a relative's place last year in the East 47th/Fraser St. area.

They purchased the place for ~$14,000 circa 1964 (from Peter Wall's sister) and resold a few years later when that area was still known as "Little Germany".

In any event, I was surprised to see the house torn down last year and subdivided into two 25' lots, with a quasi-"row house" built on each subdivided lot, each about 20' feet in width, 3 stories, and around 1,900 sq. ft. They both sold for around $820,000. Unreal. And I didn't even know that the CoV had such zoning available.

[delboy]

Assuming the "party wall agreement" were to ever come into affect. We can assume than that if a townhouse/row house development is being built. That if the owner of an individual unit owns all floors in that unit, whether there be 1 2 or 3 floors. Then it would be easy for them to also own the land beneath the unit and both in front and behind the unit. Property lines would of course be based on the where the units join together. As well as front and back lines based on zoning. This would be like taking the detached homes in a block. Narrowing them down by a few feet and then slapping them together.

The problem is what happens in a townhouse/row house development. When each floor in a unit is owned by a different owner. So you could have a 2 or 3 floor unit. Each floor has a different owner. Are we forced in this situation of using the condo idea and the land is then joint shared. Which of course means there are strata fees and all the things you can and can not do with your unit.

Not sure on the legalities, but I assume that if the party wall agreement comes into effect, then like all laws, there will have to be definitions and limits to how the row houses can be built and thus not having the strata act apply. I imagine that property lines will be very real and will limit how row houses can be built.

It really can't be that difficult, every major country in the world has row housing at some level with no issues. In fact manchester, where I'm from, is row after row after row of them.

Row houses are a very real option and as far as I'm concerned it's a case of piss or get off the pot. If Vancouver wants to carry on with the eco denisty/sustainability party line, then row housing had better be part of the master plan.

[delboy]

Interesting discussion vis-a-vis "row houses". I was not aware that they could be built in Vancouver proper until I drove by a relative's place last year in the East 47th/Fraser St. area.

They purchased the place for ~$14,000 circa 1964 (from Peter Wall's sister) and resold a few years later when that area was still known as "Little Germany".

In any event, I was surprised to see the house torn down last year and subdivided into two 25' lots, with a quasi-"row house" built on each subdivided lot, each about 20' feet in width, 3 stories, and around 1,900 sq. ft. They both sold for around $820,000. Unreal. And I didn't even know that the CoV had such zoning available.

they are not row houses in the technical sense, they will be strata, either duplex or townhouses.

[Stingray2004]

they are not row houses in the technical sense, they will be strata, either duplex or townhouses.

The two new dwellings that I was referring to on 25-foot lots are both freehold, detached single-family homes.

[jlousa]

There are numerous rowhouse developments in vancouver, some of them even fee-simple. Art Cowie was very big on pushing this forward before his death. The way he got around it was by building rowhouses that had their own walls, some could argue that they aren't true rowhouses w/o party walls but that's semantics. The ones he created were non-strata with the land belonging to each owner. The prices though were no cheaper then buying a few years old sfh in the same area.

[delboy]

There are numerous rowhouse developments in vancouver, some of them even fee-simple. Art Cowie was very big on pushing this forward before his death. The way he got around it was by building rowhouses that had their own walls, some could argue that they aren't true rowhouses w/o party walls but that's semantics. The ones he created were non-strata with the land belonging to each owner. The prices though were no cheaper then buying a few years old sfh in the same area.

Yes very sad Art's passing. I guess I'm out of touch - hopefully there will be more of these developments in the future. What is fee simple by the way?

[Spork]

Yes very sad Art's passing. I guess I'm out of touch - hopefully there will be more of these developments in the future. What is fee simple by the way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

A form of land ownership.

[cabotp]

Not sure on the legalities, but I assume that if the party wall agreement comes into effect, then like all laws, there will have to be definitions and limits to how the row houses can be built and thus not having the strata act apply. I imagine that property lines will be very real and will limit how row houses can be built.

It really can't be that difficult, every major country in the world has row housing at some level with no issues. In fact manchester, where I'm from, is row after row after row of them.

Row houses are a very real option and as far as I'm concerned it's a case of piss or get off the pot. If Vancouver wants to carry on with the eco denisty/sustainability party line, then row housing had better be part of the master plan.

Ok in the case of Manchester and the row houses. Are these row houses 1 floor only or more than 1 floor. For the ones that are more than 1 floor. Do the owners own all the floors. Or is it possible to buy a dwelling on the 1st floor and someone else buy a dwelling on the 2nd floor. Two separate owners. Without having to pay a strata fee and all that goes along with it.

While I have nothing against condo's. I just don't like the idea of a strata fee. Why can't I put my own drapes up or repaint my bathroom to a colour that I want. Just to give a couple of ideas. I realize that has nothing to do with the fee directly. But with the fee the strata council has more power over what you can do.

[worldwide]

i thought there were already freehold townhomes that had been built in Vancouver. im thinking of a development near Windsor and Kingsway... maybe i'm wrong. anyone know what im talking about?

[cabotp]

i thought there were already freehold townhomes that had been built in Vancouver. im thinking of a development near Windsor and Kingsway... maybe i'm wrong. anyone know what im talking about?

The only thing I see on google street view is the complex on the south east corner. With the stores on the bottom? Is that what you are talking about.

[red-paladin]

In downtown Poco and now on the north side, they just rezone square blocks to be townhouses, condos and rowhouses, and then someone buys the whole block and redevelops it. It's been happening for 20 years and they just rezoned a bunch of land near Shaughnessy and Prarie. Here are some zoning plans: http://www.city.port-coquitlam.bc.ca/__shared/assets/OCP_Part_4_-__May_20085717.pdf Page 79 shows the zoning block and the current tiny lots. All of that will be developed sooner or later, and if you drive through Poco, you can see blocks being sold and cleared and development signs. So to say that land can't be wholesale redeveloped in a few years time is not true, at least there.

[cabotp]

In downtown Poco and now on the north side, they just rezone square blocks to be townhouses, condos and rowhouses, and then someone buys the whole block and redevelops it. It's been happening for 20 years and they just rezoned a bunch of land near Shaughnessy and Prarie. Here are some zoning plans: http://www.city.port-coquitlam.bc.ca/__shared/assets/OCP_Part_4_-__May_20085717.pdf Page 79 shows the zoning block and the current tiny lots. All of that will be developed sooner or later, and if you drive through Poco, you can see blocks being sold and cleared and development signs. So to say that land can't be wholesale redeveloped in a few years time is not true, at least there.

Those square blocks that they rezoned. Were they detached homes before? What if a few people on the block didn't want to sell?

[red-paladin]

They were detached homes. Basically they rezoned most of downtown Poco first, and block after block have been flattened over the last 20 years and replaced. In some cases you can see where there are like 3 houses left on a given block, and there are empty lots, like some places you see in Burnaby. Presumably the developer is just waiting for those people to change their mind / die. But there are cases like my friend's parents, where they were anxiously waiting for their block to get rezoned, so they could sell the house at a higher price. I guess if people don't want to sell, even with the increasing prices, they can't force them in any way. It's not like some places where the developer pays a gang to burn your store down if you don't sell it! (Ok exaggerating but it at least crossed my mind with some of those recent fires downtown)

[dennis1]

http://www.formshiftvancouver.com/files/Wildcard/W26%20Toshimune%20Suzuki/board1.pdf