Lower Mainland flops on efforts to slow down sprawl

[mr.x]

Lower Mainland flops on efforts to slow down sprawl

Doug Ward, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, May 20, 2008

METRO VANCOUVER - The region failed to curb population sprawl in recent years after some success in creating more compact communities in the '90s, a new report shows.

The share of new urban and suburban growth that went into pedestrian-oriented development in Metro Vancouver declined from 2001 through 2006, accorindg to the Sightline Institute.

Using 2006 census data, the Seattle-based think tank found that the amount of land developed in Metro Vancouver to accommodate new residents increased, compared with the two previous census periods.

Nevertheless, Metro Vancouver's growth has been "fairly compact" in comparison to many U.S. cities, according to Sightline research director Clark Williams-Derry.

"Yet there are signs that Greater Vancouver's smart-growth leadership may be slipping," said Williams-Derry, in the report entitled Slowing Down.

"The region marked its clearest smart-growth successes before 2001.

"Somewhat surprisingly, the pace of compact growth slowed over the most recent census interval."

Compact neighbourhoods accounted for just 56 per cent of new urban and suburban development, compared with 67 per cent during the '90s.

In an interview, Williams-Derry said that the decline in density could be connected to a slowdown in the rate of population growth in the region between 2001-2006 compared to the previous census periods.

When local governments are faced with a high influx of new people, they are often more willing to accommodate people in concentrated areas than during times of low population growth, he added.

While giving the region a failing grade, the report did praise Vancouver and the City of North Vancouver for creating smart-growth neighbourhoods. These two cities were followed in ranking by New Westminster, Burnaby, White Rock and Richmond.

Between 2001 and 2006, the City of Vancouver's pedestrian-oriented communities had a net growth of 27,000 residents - about four-fifths of the net population growth for the city.

In Metro Vancouver, about one out of every eight residents lives in a neighbourhood with pedestrian-oriented densities with the City of Vancouver home to nearly two-thirds of them.

The Vancouver led the region in another category - the share of residents living in neighbourhoods with at least 20 residents per acre.

In Vancouver, three out of four residents lived in such "compact" densities as of 2006. Similarly, four other municipalities - Burnaby, New Westminster, White Rock and the City of North Vancouver - had one in three residents at such densities.

But even these numbers are low, according to the report, citing research suggesting that urban densities exceeding 40 residents per acre are required for travel on foot and bicycle to really flourish.

Sightline's report was based on data from the last four census findings. The think tank divided the landscape of Metro Vancouver into a 30-by-30 metre grid for each Census period. In each grid Sightline calculated the population density of circles containing at least 500 residents.

Williams-Derry said in the report that the trend towards greater sprawl is undermining Premier Gordon Campbell's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2020.

He said that climate-changing emissions can only be reduced if progress is made "in creating compact, transit-and-pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods that ease car dependence for B.C. residents."

dward@png.canwest.com

[Kwik-E-Mart]

Hopefully all the new development along the future rapid transit stations will reverse the trend within the next decade.

[Architype]

I just read that in the Sun. I think that Vancouver is doing better than most other Canadian cities though. Part of the problem must surely be that too many municpalities in the Lower Mainland are competing against each other for growth.

Here's a link with more about this with the animated population map:
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_sco...r-vancouver-bc

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Architype

I just read that in the Sun. I think that Vancouver is doing better than most other Canadian cities though. Part of the problem must surely be that too many municpalities in the Lower Mainland are competing against each other for growth.

True but nothing to be proud of. What i hate vancouver is that often we say how good we are but only comparing ourselves to north american cities. We can do much more much better =)

[Mininari]

Well, from a former Vancouverite now living in Winnipeg:
Just come on out here and take a look at the massive "Waverley West" development.
An upper-middle class, sprawling neighbourhood being built in the far southwest corner of Winnipeg. Apparently something like 15,000 units of housing ... and no rapid transit, and probably poor bus service at best.

Meanwhile, the Exchange District and downtown suffer, despite the enormous amount of potential for revitalization, condos, new business etc. Apparently city council thinks more surface parking lots downtown will bring in more people.

My message to the Metro Vancouver Region: Don't beat yourself up over this report... you ARE still a leading urban regional planning model city for the improvement of North American cities from road-driven sprawl-based city, to a more balanced and livable type of city.

[Hed Kandi]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

Lower Mainland flops on efforts to slow down sprawl

Doug Ward, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, May 20, 2008

METRO VANCOUVER - The region failed to curb population sprawl in recent years after some success in creating more compact communities in the '90s, a new report shows.

The share of new urban and suburban growth that went into pedestrian-oriented development in Metro Vancouver declined from 2001 through 2006, accorindg to the Sightline Institute.

Using 2006 census data, the Seattle-based think tank found that the amount of land developed in Metro Vancouver to accommodate new residents increased, compared with the two previous census periods.

Nevertheless, Metro Vancouver's growth has been "fairly compact" in comparison to many U.S. cities, according to Sightline research director Clark Williams-Derry.

"Yet there are signs that Greater Vancouver's smart-growth leadership may be slipping," said Williams-Derry, in the report entitled Slowing Down.

"The region marked its clearest smart-growth successes before 2001.

"Somewhat surprisingly, the pace of compact growth slowed over the most recent census interval."

Compact neighbourhoods accounted for just 56 per cent of new urban and suburban development, compared with 67 per cent during the '90s.

In an interview, Williams-Derry said that the decline in density could be connected to a slowdown in the rate of population growth in the region between 2001-2006 compared to the previous census periods.

When local governments are faced with a high influx of new people, they are often more willing to accommodate people in concentrated areas than during times of low population growth, he added.

While giving the region a failing grade, the report did praise Vancouver and the City of North Vancouver for creating smart-growth neighbourhoods. These two cities were followed in ranking by New Westminster, Burnaby, White Rock and Richmond.

Between 2001 and 2006, the City of Vancouver's pedestrian-oriented communities had a net growth of 27,000 residents - about four-fifths of the net population growth for the city.

In Metro Vancouver, about one out of every eight residents lives in a neighbourhood with pedestrian-oriented densities with the City of Vancouver home to nearly two-thirds of them.

The Vancouver led the region in another category - the share of residents living in neighbourhoods with at least 20 residents per acre.

In Vancouver, three out of four residents lived in such "compact" densities as of 2006. Similarly, four other municipalities - Burnaby, New Westminster, White Rock and the City of North Vancouver - had one in three residents at such densities.

But even these numbers are low, according to the report, citing research suggesting that urban densities exceeding 40 residents per acre are required for travel on foot and bicycle to really flourish.

Sightline's report was based on data from the last four census findings. The think tank divided the landscape of Metro Vancouver into a 30-by-30 metre grid for each Census period. In each grid Sightline calculated the population density of circles containing at least 500 residents.

Williams-Derry said in the report that the trend towards greater sprawl is undermining Premier Gordon Campbell's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by 2020.

He said that climate-changing emissions can only be reduced if progress is made "in creating compact, transit-and-pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods that ease car dependence for B.C. residents."

dward@png.canwest.com

My thoughts on the reasoning for urban sprawl.


1) Vancouver's astronomical house prices are continuing to drive lower mainland residents further and further out to suburbia.

The average house prices in Vancouver in 2007 was $757,750. Yet according to a recent article published in 24 Hours, wages in Vancouver are 11% lower than they were in 1980. Unlike larger financial centers such as Singapore, New York, Hong Kong, there is no large financial industry here to foster six figure salaries. Nor is there a dominant industrial sector such as mining or gas here to pay the wages of your blue collar workers.

Considering that Vancouver's primary industries are tourism and service based, how is your average worker at a restaurant or a call center supposed to enter into a $400 000 mortgage.


2) Vancouver's building height restrictions are in actuality stifling population density.

Here it is strictly a question of size and numbers. How many residents can a 700, 800, or 900ft building house in comparison to your average 250 or 300ft Yaletown condo.

The height restrictions do nothing more than impede potential population density. Imagine if Hong Kong had imposed height limits on its buildings, where would all the people go?


3) Vancouver's condos are not very "livable".
Each time I pick up a local newspaper, I am bombarded with condo advertisements which depict the "quintessential Vancouver lifestyle", a young couple sitting on the couch with their Paris Hilton style mutt dog.

This young, urban, professional lifestyle may be great for some, but not for all. Vancouver's condos fail to address the needs and space requirements of families. How then is your average family of 2 parents and 2 or 3 kids supposed to live in a 2 bedroom condo?

Vancouver's condos are not being built large enough and so those who choose to have children are forced out to suburbia in order to find a sufficient sized residence. Vancouver has failed to build condos with 4 or 5 bedrooms required for families. If Vancouver wants to encourage Eco density, it must build accordingly.

[amac]

Blame it on GREEDY CONDO DEVELOPERS and SHORT-SIGHTED CITY GOVERNANCE. Vancouver is fucked.

[deasine]

Hmmm? Don't condos help sprall? -_-" Yes some of Vancouver's condos are a little too small, but then again if they were big, i would much rather live in a townhouse. Iunno i guess it's my preference.

We've been doing good for a while, I just hope they'll keep it up. With the ecodensity plan, it will slow things for a while for sure. Metro Vancouver Board/TransLink also has plans to increase density/develop along major transportation cooridors, such as 41st Avenue, Evergreen Line route, etc. But we still have a long way...

[Rusty Gull]

Hed Kandi -- great post. You are spot on this time...

[Canadian Mind]

I didn't care about mountain views as a kid, nor did i care about natural lighting, and i didn't give a damn about my home size, as long as i had the biggest room.

so give up the idea of mountain views, natural lighting, open space at street level, and build a compact cluster of large, tall, family and less-wealthy oriented towers east of the main downtown core. keep the idea of commercial and amenities at street level, but skip all the fancy crap and stick to the essentials. same goes with the rooms. skip hardwood in favor of linoleum and carpet, and you will hopefully end up with cheaper, larger apartments for rent or condo's to own for families.

Again, families want the essentials to raise kids, not all the fancy crap that people pay 800 bucks per square foot for. fancy stuff is for vacations. really, there is plenty of open are just east of downtown behind the port, why not open it up for large high rise development?

[jlousa]

Umm the market has spoken, people do want all those nice things, thats why developers are making them like that. Try to offer no natural light, linoleum floors, no ammenties and see what happens.
Just because there are lots of people that can't afford $800sqft doesn't mean there aren't lots of people that can. Projects are not having trouble selling at these prices.
Why do people think they have a right to own downtown? There are hundreds of units available for under $500psf in good areas next to public transit.
You can even buy brand new product in the burbs for just over $300psf. That is still cheap. Renting is also an option, and it's compartively much cheaper then owning at these prices. Theres no shame in it.
Do not think that increased building heights would lower prices, I can assure you that they will not, By the time you get to 30 stories the land cost component is no longer the major expense, by allowing to build to 60stories, the only thing you have accomplished is you've doubled the value of the land, the cost per unit will still come out about the same, the real price is in the construction costs, which get more expensive as the building gets taller, ie longer time to get materials to top, thicker columns, more space allocated to elevators etc.

The average household in Vancouver is 2.4people that is what the market targets, don't see the need for a lot of 4-5 bedroom condos. Maybe a townhouse or sfh would better suit a family that requires that many bedrooms.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

so give up the idea of mountain views, natural lighting, open space at street level, and build a compact cluster of large, tall, family and less-wealthy oriented towers east of the main downtown core. keep the idea of commercial and amenities at street level, but skip all the fancy crap and stick to the essentials. same goes with the rooms. skip hardwood in favor of linoleum and carpet, and you will hopefully end up with cheaper, larger apartments for rent or condo's to own for families.

You wouldn't be getting yourself anywhere then. If you were a developer, you would want to get as much as the "best materials and features" as possible: increase the $$$ which in turn more $$$ at the end of the day.

If we make condos/townhouses/apartments so unattractive, do you think it would be easy to switch Vancouver over to higher density? For sure not.

[Hed Kandi]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Umm the market has spoken, people do want all those nice things, thats why developers are making them like that. Try to offer no natural light, linoleum floors, no ammenties and see what happens.
Just because there are lots of people that can't afford $800sqft doesn't mean there aren't lots of people that can. Projects are not having trouble selling at these prices.
Why do people think they have a right to own downtown? There are hundreds of units available for under $500psf in good areas next to public transit.
You can even buy brand new product in the burbs for just over $300psf. That is still cheap. Renting is also an option, and it's compartively much cheaper then owning at these prices. Theres no shame in it.
Do not think that increased building heights would lower prices, I can assure you that they will not, By the time you get to 30 stories the land cost component is no longer the major expense, by allowing to build to 60stories, the only thing you have accomplished is you've doubled the value of the land, the cost per unit will still come out about the same, the real price is in the construction costs, which get more expensive as the building gets taller, ie longer time to get materials to top, thicker columns, more space allocated to elevators etc.

The average household in Vancouver is 2.4people that is what the market targets, don't see the need for a lot of 4-5 bedroom condos. Maybe a townhouse or sfh would better suit a family that requires that many bedrooms.

A couple of things,

Who is actually buying all these condos? Local Vancouverites or international buyers?

If it is the local Vancouverite snagging up these million dollar homes, then who is paying their salary?

A quick glance at the Global 2000 reveals Canada's largest corporations. How many have their headquarters in Vancouver?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/18/...Counrty_2.html

It would be interesting to see data as to the number of condos purchased in downtown Vancouver by foreign buyers who use the residence as a second home for a few months of the year.


Construction costs...

I'm not a property developer but I'd be willing to wager that the construction costs of building a 900ft tower is less expensive than building three 300 ft towers constructed subsequently.


Number of people per household

Are developers building smaller condos with fewer rooms because they are building for the average market figure of 2.4? Or is the 2.4 figure derived from families not being able to live in Vancouver because of space related and financial issues?

2.4 per household for Vancouver does not seem unreasonable, essentially since the majority of families have been forced to move outside of Vancouver to raise a family.

What then is the average number per household in family dwelling ares such as Surrey, North Van, Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, Abbotsford? If these people could afford to live comfortably in Vancouver financially and physically, would the number per household not then increase?

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Do not think that increased building heights would lower prices, I can assure you that they will not, By the time you get to 30 stories the land cost component is no longer the major expense, by allowing to build to 60stories, the only thing you have accomplished is you've doubled the value of the land, the cost per unit will still come out about the same, the real price is in the construction costs, which get more expensive as the building gets taller, ie longer time to get materials to top, thicker columns, more space allocated to elevators etc.

The average household in Vancouver is 2.4people that is what the market targets, don't see the need for a lot of 4-5 bedroom condos. Maybe a townhouse or sfh would better suit a family that requires that many bedrooms.

Stop thinking only in terms of downtown! I'll agree with you that building costs mean taller buildings downtown generally wouldn't be much more affordable, but outside the downtown core...

I personally dislike the height restrictions downtown (this being skyscraperpage and all), but I find it hard to believe that they have as much impact on housing prices and sprawl as the ones in the rest of Vancouver. Bert and fever calculated that buildings in Kits would probably be around 70 stories without height limits. Even after considering that prices (and correspondingly optimal height) would drop as supply increased, and accounting for some other costs, it's easy to imagine that the optimal height for many buildings would be at least above 20 stories. As much as I personally dislike downtown height limits and zoning restrictions, I doubt that many downtown buildings would be 5+ times higher than they currently are without said limits. Not so for a lot of places outside downtown.

I agree with you on the number of bedrooms though. People need to give up their desire for suburban amounts of space in the city.

[jlousa]

Locals are buying these condos, it is not the rich international investors as some believe. Vancouver is still very affordable to DINKs (dual income no kids) and to people with good jobs. There is a large amount of people in this city making good salaries (see the demand for high end cars/fashion/restaurants). Yes it's not possible for someone in the service industry to be able to buy downtown, but can afford to rent there, or they can still afford to buy in to burbs the situation is the same in most large cities.
Pretty sure people aren't having smaller families because of the size of condos, it's the other way around. If you look at the stats across the country even at much cheaper cities like Regina, you'll find the household number doesn't stray too far from 2.4.

On the note that a 90 storey tower would be cheaper then 3*30 storey towers, that's actually not always the case, the costs will come in very similar, it would probably even favour the smaller towers even accounting for extra land costs. The amount of concrete and steel used on the 1*90 tower would be greater then 3*30 towers. The parkade would have to be much deeper, the elevator system much more expensive, the fire pump would be an many times more expensive.

Getting back on track, Eco-density is not about making the city more affordable, it will help though in not letting prices continue to escalate by increasing supply to try and meet demand.