HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2008, 6:53 PM
squeezied's Avatar
squeezied squeezied is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2 View Post
[B][SIZE="5"]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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2008, 7:07 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Look at Vancouver's density change:
Source?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2008, 12:23 AM
Bert Bert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 411
The watermark points to the Sightline Institute (slightly different version at link).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2008, 3:00 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2008, 5:09 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
^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...

Last edited by deasine; Sep 6, 2008 at 5:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2009, 1:36 PM
Delirium's Avatar
Delirium Delirium is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,227
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

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2009, 12:56 AM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is offline
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,572
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2009, 2:20 AM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2009, 9:00 PM
crazyjoeda's Avatar
crazyjoeda crazyjoeda is offline
Mac User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 861
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2009, 9:32 PM
fever's Avatar
fever fever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,019
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2009, 10:51 PM
raggedy13's Avatar
raggedy13 raggedy13 is offline
Dérive-r
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,446
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2009, 11:26 PM
crazyjoeda's Avatar
crazyjoeda crazyjoeda is offline
Mac User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 861
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2009, 2:14 PM
flight_from_kamakura's Avatar
flight_from_kamakura flight_from_kamakura is offline
testify
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: san francisco and montreal
Posts: 1,319
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2009, 2:24 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2009, 3:54 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Big week next week at city hall,

Secondary suites
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ea5summary.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ents/phea5.PDF

Laneway housing

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ea6summary.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ents/phea6.PDF

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...re_by-law_.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...guidelines.pdf

6 story wood buildings

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...cuments/p3.pdf

Additional water conservation measures

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...cuments/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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2009, 4:04 AM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Shoebox Dweller
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,784
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2009, 4:14 AM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2009, 4:25 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is online now
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 11,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2009, 7:42 PM
mrjauk mrjauk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 555
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. Here are some quotes:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by mrjauk; Aug 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM. Reason: Add comment below and added more quotes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2009, 7:50 PM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:59 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.