HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2008, 6:20 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2008, 5:31 PM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 8:14 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
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.

http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/w...%20B_FINAL.pdf

Lets see some good dicussion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 8:40 PM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 9:04 PM
vanlaw vanlaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 667
I fail to see how this plan, or any other, will make Vancouver "affordable".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 9:22 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 10:17 PM
worldwide's Avatar
worldwide worldwide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver - Ktown
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlaw View Post
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.
__________________
Hieroglyphics yeah, to the kick and the snare like that, there, yeah, we keep it raw rare
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 11:26 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 11:57 PM
jlousa's Avatar
jlousa jlousa is offline
Ferris Wheel Hater
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by tintinium View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 2:16 AM
Bert Bert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 411
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.

Last edited by Bert; May 15, 2008 at 2:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 6:01 AM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert View Post
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/fac.../Manhattan.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 6:55 AM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
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.

Last edited by GMasterAres; May 15, 2008 at 7:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 7:35 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
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!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 8:03 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 8:05 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
^ with me, single child on my side of the family.....6 homes, 1 condo - ALL MINE!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 8:16 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 8:55 AM
worldwide's Avatar
worldwide worldwide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver - Ktown
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
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
__________________
Hieroglyphics yeah, to the kick and the snare like that, there, yeah, we keep it raw rare
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 9:12 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldwide View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 4:09 PM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
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.

Last edited by quobobo; May 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 15, 2008, 6:18 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
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.
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 4:17 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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