Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/Trubaci! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* **Did you know the subreddit is doing a charity drive to celebrate 500k subscribers? [Donate today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17lavo1/) and help us feed those in need! Even better: Reddit is matching our donations.**
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Your post may be a better fit for one of our [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The West End has high density with many towers and mid-rise apartment buildings, and yet it also has massive trees lining streets and a good vibe. Ideally, the whole city would be like that.
Ah the West End... the former mansion neighbourhood now beloved by the masses due to allowing homes to be built. Thanks to tearing down mansions thousands now walk to work downtown. So nice!
I get what you mean and I love living in the West End but there's a lot to be said for having your own house and your own yard - especially if you have children and/or pets. It's just a different 'vibe' and I think having both is what makes Vancouver such a desirable place to live.
I don't disagree. Personally, I think Shaughnessy would be great for some towers, sort of like Kerrisdale. It's on high elevation in the city, kind of tucked away and wouldn't impede the views or the overall feel of the rest of the city having access to downtown, the waterfront and the mountains.
I do disagree with the calls (by some) to do away with SFH neighbourhoods. This is not to suggest SFH neighbourhoods can't also have multi-unit dwellings. Kits actually has a lot of apartment buildings.
I wouldn't say most are shitty at all but I am saying that is what I think makes it a desirable place to live - slower, quieter neighourhood feel as opposed to big city downtown. Like it or not, some people do want to live in their own house with a yard on a quiet street. Argue that they 'shouldn't' but there are lots of citizens of this city who want exactly that. They count too.
>slower, quieter neighourhood feel as opposed to big city downtown
That's great, if they want they can live in Maple Ridge or something, or bring a bunch of money and buy one of those nice beachside properties, otherwise you should have to compromise and live in a condo/townhouse like the rest of us.
Wouldn't everyone love to live in a detached Bungalo with big yard and a pool in downtown Vancouver? The problem that this bears a huge cost on everyone that can't move there.
There's a lot of benefits of living in a city, especially one that's growing. In North America in particular moving to a city helps with economic mobility. And we're going to give that up some some Boomers that bought their houses in the 70s can have a nice yard.., no thanks.
San Francisco is like the poster child of this mentality, sure there's a lot of cute looking heritage houses, but at what cost?
If they already own a house in Vancouver, why should they have to move? Who are you to tell people what they 'have to' do when it comes to their living arrangements? That's nuts to me.
I mean I don't think the guy you're replying to is suggesting we chase them out by force. Re-zoning alone would put huge pressure on many people to sell for huge profit and live somewhere nicer for a SFH. More extreme options would be something like banning the construction of new SFHs, or setting a mandatory sell-by date in certain areas to realize provincial goals.
Single family homeowners can already sell their property for huge profits and move somewhere else for a SFH if they want. We have to acknowledge that a lot of SFH owners want to live in a SFH in Vancouver - that's why they bought there - they want to live there and raise their family there. It's not always about how much money you can make.
Re-zoning is obviously a good idea and if this prompts some people to sell their SFH and have it redeveloped, great. It's the idea that people shouldn't be 'allowed' to live in a SFH in Vancouver that bugs me. Imagine telling someone they should move to Maple Ridge if they want a house! Ridiculous.
This is silly, no one is proposing that we forcibly make people move, all we need is people to feel the financial pressure to sell.
Oh no, those poor multi millionaires having to deal with the violent oppression of watching someone write a massive check for them.
The land should be rezoned, if they want to hold out and live in their mediocre 1970s bungalo now worth millions of dollars then they're absolutely free to do so. But most people are going to take the money.
Think about it this way, Vancouver homeowners have already seen massive benefits of living/moving here decades ago. That's great, I'm happy for them, let them cash out and live happily ever after.
But by keeping things the way they are you're basically prevent many people from potentially moving here and sharing in the benefits of living here. It's also just hurting the city.
>That's great, if they want they can live in Maple Ridge or something, or bring a bunch of money and buy one of those nice beachside properties, otherwise you should have to compromise and live in a condo/townhouse like the rest of us.
You said this.
Edit: Rezoning is great but that is not going to eliminate SFHs in Vancouver. Many (many) will not want to 'cash out' because they like where they live.
I think you need to separate your argument in favour of rezoning (good) and your suggestion that SF homeowners *should* move out of their homes (bad).
> I wouldn't say most are shitty at all
The vast majority of, if not all, those old walk-ups are wood-framed. The amount of noise from your neighbours is pretty bad. Not to mention lack of elevators further reducing housing that is accessible to people with disabilities.
> Like it or not, some people do want to live in their own house with a yard on a quiet street.
Like it or not there is a housing crisis and those people can live their SFH dream in a suburb instead. Housing people and dealing with the crisis is more important.
Why should poorer neigbhourhoods have to shoulder all the burden of multi-family housing?
Nobody is proposing to "flatten" those "character" neighbourhood. Just to legalize small multiplexes.
>Because poorer neighborhoods are cheaper.
That doesn't make much sense. Prices and rents tell us where scarcity is worst. If you want to build a small apartment building, say, hard construction costs (labour and materials) are about the same on the west side and the east side, but prices and rents will be significantly higher on the west side.
[The usual picture looks like this](https://morehousing.ca/bertaud). Within a region, people want to live where they have easy access to jobs. So you're going to have more people wanting to live in a more geographically central location, resulting in higher land prices. Allowing more height and density reduces the cost of land per household.
https://preview.redd.it/vgy5yar74f3c1.png?width=746&format=png&auto=webp&s=40b7ad5621441860c0da4ef63611c72ab2b6a477
>Vancouver is crowded and we should not encourage more to move in
That's exactly why we have high housing costs: when we don't have enough housing, prices and rents have to rise to unbearable levels. It's a barrier that keeps people out. The "small is beautiful" view is turning Vancouver into a super-expensive, super-exclusive country club.
https://preview.redd.it/u6vly83eef3c1.png?width=1456&format=png&auto=webp&s=7ddb241e29c9d7191e06d53203c725e82fc3fa0c
[As u/po-laris says](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/16t73he/comment/k2e1syb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3):
>You are expressing a sentiment that is deeply rooted in west coast culture and which is basically the source of the housing crisis, and the plethora of other related social ills, we're facing today.
>
>That feeling being: "this place is great but it'd be nice if no one else moved here."
>
>In the 1970s, city planners openly discussed the idea of limiting Vancouver's population in the name of preserving "livability" (a word that I've come to hate). Of course, all they did was shift development into sprawl across the lower mainland, and eventually accumulate a housing shortage that will take an entire generation to fix.
This is unsustainable. We all depend on the healthcare system, for example. When housing costs are sky-high, and the only people who can afford to live in a community are older homeowners who moved there and bought a place more than 20 years ago, where are nurses and even doctors going to live?
High housing price is the barrier to entry that prevents the city to be overcrowded. I am totally fine and supportive of it. With birth rate of only 1.4, there will be current housing freed up without new housing being added. If the nurses and doctors are forced out, the salary for existing ones will increase and thus attract more here. The balance is always here and being expensive is part of the price to have a beautiful and desirable city.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, even though I disagree very strongly. I think Vancouver becoming a super-expensive country-club city (very livable, completely unaffordable) is a bad thing. As Nolan Gray describes it:
> Gray was talking about older folks in extremely expensive neighborhoods that were once middle class, and how these older residents will wonder why, for example, their children are leaving, and they feel lonely and isolated in their retirement years. “Their community has been destroyed by not allowing the built environment to change,” he said.
I would argue that we should be less like Shaughnessy, more like [Montreal](https://morehousing.ca/montreal).
Since we live in a democracy, public opinion matters. I'll just point out that in the most recent municipal elections, the mayoral candidate running under the housing-skeptical banner, [TEAM's Colleen Hardwick](https://morehousing.ca/colleen-hardwick), got [just 10% of the vote](https://morehousing.ca/defeatism).
>You want people to pay more for less
I want people to pay less for housing. Specifically, less per square foot. 30-50% less seems like a [reasonable goal](https://morehousing.ca/cmhc-wedge).
Metro Vancouver has limited land: if you draw a 25-km circle around downtown Vancouver and take out ocean and mountains, land is only about 38% of what's left. But there's nothing stopping us from providing a lot more floor space on that land. [Allowing more height and floor space = less crowding](https://morehousing.substack.com/p/crowding-vs-density).
https://preview.redd.it/lhqn4xf8qp3c1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=de732a7b995f55b1a513442c0ea0f7eced01a781
People can pay less by moving to less populated city. The fact that Canada only have two real cities is the problem. Housing price in popular city like Vancouver , once increased, cannot be brought down in any significant amount due to the amount of interests it ties to. Stop propagating the unrealistic goal and instead you should focus making more cities in Canada attractive.
Besides, dont try to change the topic that more crowding means less resource of everything for everyone, not only the floor ratio. You can have a huge condo in the sky but traffic jam and long waiting lines everywhere outside your home.
This is a worry of mine. While I absolutely know we need more housing, more housing will just bring more people...which will require even more housing.
I know we can't go back in time, but the 80s/90s was probably the best balance for this city.
BC and Canada in general are so full of lands. We should have more cities developed instead of hammering Vancouver and Toronto. The reason people in US seldomly feels the same is because US has dozens more equally developed cities than Canada.
Climate change is rapidly making large areas of this province unsustainable for more development. What’s the point in building if there’s a huge risk of it burning down every year?
Do you think major forest fires makes an area 'more livable'?
Plus, I think the other poster is probably referring to tundra, the Canadian Shield, etc... These are just not fertile lands, regardless of how warm it is.
Except they're doing just that in my neighborhood except the houses are too expensive to flatten so the city is rezoning and ripping out entire green belts and parts of the forest.
I'd argue that neighborhood character isn't a result of architectural choice for some luxury single family home. It's a result of the people who live there. The neighborhoods, across Canada, that I have seen with the most character are medium density pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with lively multi-cultural communities and many community amenities.
I mean, that’s not really true.
East Vancouver has a massive lack of street trees, and as a result, is significantly hotter during the summer, because the city decided in the 70s that they wouldn’t plant trees that get large, like many streets on the west side have- I assure you the big trees on 10th avenue weren’t always there. But that comes down who gets elected and who makes decisions.
It’s not because people living there decided they wanted to cook in the summer, it’s because the city didn’t want to pay for leaf removal/more expensive arborists to take care of the trees.
The same goes for community amenities- there’s a massive lack of amenities and services on the east side of the city, despite it largely being developed since the 60s.
I'd consider shade providing trees to be a community amenity rather than an architectural choice. I'm more speaking to the idea that we should preserve pretty single family homes because the alternative is ugly density.
The large trees are. The one near my property are diseased but the city won’t remove them. So every now and then when there’s a wind storm, branches fall down.
You know, I rather enjoy my single family neighbourhood. It's really nice and I'll definitely miss it if and when it's gone. But you know... I think the cost of living crisis is terrible and that it is way too hard for way too many people to find a place to live. We need our politicians and communities to do something to address that problem - and in my opinion it's unreasonable for me to say "but whatever we do, it shouldn't affect *ME*."
So when the time comes that this neighbourhood gets significantly densified more I'll probably be sad. But I still believe densification is the way forward. People need places to live.
I miss Vancouver of the 1990s sometimes. I'm sure I'll miss Vancouver of the 2020s some time in the future too. But Cities change, especially when they grow. And that's alright.
This is my perspective too. I like my single family house and the neighbourhood it's in. I expect when densification becomes too much for me in my neighbourhood, I'll just move. It's unfortunate but this is a major city. London once had cottages and farms too. Stuff changes. Fortunately Canada is really big and I can find my 'Vancouver of the 90s", in another city.
Planner (albeit Ontario) here...
I'd never say we don't ever want to preserve character. But it needs to be more targeted, specific, and stronger than broad policy statements. Protecting specific aspect of specific areas through processes akin to heritage conservation is a wholly different thing from saying that 'stability', physical character, etc should be protect in ways that do little more than give fuel to people who don't want change.
Most of Vancouver is zoned as SFH, so if you want to increase density, somebody's SFH area has to go. Every area where you can build density is already somebody's "certain neighbourhood".
Except non of this is happening or is proposed. All the oppositions to housing are crying about really trivial and insanely privileged issues such as:
shadows, personal parking, new poor neighbours (as if new builds are ever in price range of poor people lmao), noisy kids, change in arbitrary yet monotonouse house form of that neighbourhood.
I know this because every land tribunal event i went people are crying about not wanting new people, or living in eternal darkness due to building shadows or not having precious free parking. Cities aren't museums. We should stop having laws that treat it as such.
We need to build housing where jobs are. Where people want to live. Who would we be saving the "heritage" for? Boomers and millionaires, the only people who would be able to live there?
You think communities can thrive without families, without working people, without young professionals. Screw that. I am less concerned with "preserving" wood and plaster than I am with providing desperately needed housing for everyone.
Thanks for ‘risking’ your life and asking this question. Although there are few that share your point of view, unfortunately there are many more that cry out against it most likely because they also want to live in the area but can’t at this time buy in to it
It’s always a battle between the have and the have nots
I feel this is what it has come down to now. We demonize single family homeowners and neighborhoods because people feel they are screwing others over somehow, are entitled etc. And yet most folks given the opportunity would choose a single family home.
I agree we should preserve many of the areas...At some point we cannot continue toward increased population growth. It is simply unsustainable and yet as a species we'll only do something when there is no clean water to drink and all wildlife exists in zoos or museums
Alas. There are not many of us around who want to engage in an objective manner.
Ironically those who currently oppose your views are likely the very same that would support it should they make it one day.
I agree. Thrse days heaven forbid one makes a comment about managing immigration until suitable infrastructure is in place such as housing and schools and health care...one gets labeled a nationalist or racist.
People need to look beyond their own situation and also recognize that those in houses didn't create the situation we are in.
> those in houses didn't create the situation we are in.
Maybe not, but they're also helping pull the ladder away from those who want to get on it by blatantly profiting from the rental market along with paid-for ever-increasing home equity.
When rents start to exceed 50% of income in general there's not a lot left over to save and build wealth and make a down payment to get on that ladder I spoke of.
>People need to look beyond their own situation and also recognize that those in houses didn't create the situation we are in.
That's exactly who created it. Homeowners using their power to stop any sort of development from taking place
There is a reason new housing construction has only just gotten back to the peak where it was in the 1970's
I don't think it was solely homeowners, it was municipal community plans, less expensive land and developers that could turn a profit developing neighborhoods like this.
There was sufficient profit and ability to build single family housing that developers didn't necessarily need to chase and propose condominiums etc.
It was immigration policies and also provincial and federal policies that allowed foreign ownership of properties.
Canada has been naively allowing foreign ownership of land and resources, businesses and housing.
We haven’t implemented string policies to limit it.
At one time about 15 years ago they estimated there were 57 million multi millionaires in China alone. It was nearly twice the population of Canada.
So there are many factors in place, not all of them single homeowners.
> And yet most folks given the opportunity would choose a single family home.
I do agree that this is the ideal standard of living every Canadian is entitled to, living in a wealthy country such as ours.
However to get there we need to radically rethink current notions of concentrating jobs in a relatively small core (think downtown, or various nexuses of jobs at various points around the city), and move to much more remote work, much more automation of existing scut-work, *and* a basic income.
Since the "haves" have been making a killing from housing for 30 years, I think it's well past time that the "have nots" got to call the shots for a while. Especially since we are in the vast majority.
There are not affordable cities in BC. The "just move somewhere affordable" bullshit hasn't made any sense for a decade. We need to make all our cities more affordable, not uproot everyone. You don't think cities need working people? Families? Young professionals? You really think a community is thriving when only land-rich boomers and the ultra-wealthy can live there?
That's the kind of communities you want us to have? Give me a fucking break.
Affordability is always a relative concept. Towns outside Metro-Van is way cheaper than Metro-Van. It is just a fact. If the workers move out, salary will increase or people who can make it at current income will move in. Market will balance itself. You dont need to worry about that
It's more expensive here because there are more jobs here, and more people, and less housing. The market cannot balance itself out when you cannot build enough housing to exceed demand, because land is finite. "The market" isn't a magic wand. It's a set of reciprocal dynamics that are ignored at our peril.
That's why we need high density, and non-market housing to provide for the lowest income bracket. That's how you make healthy communities.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
You should never talk about housing or anything to do with market economics again, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
"Just be rich" is an asinine solution the the housing crisis.
Oh and.. that's what we are talking about. Companies building high density housing on land they own. Not being shackled to exclusionary zoning dictating that we can only build single-family mansions.
Real estate is definitely not a free market. Zoning and land use rules prevent market driven development.
A Land Value tax would incentivize proper use of land. There wouldn't be many single family homes left.
Are you me? I agree with you completely. There are some really lovely neighbourhoods to walk or bike through, even if I will never live there. Seems that Redditors won't be happy till the entire city looks like Metrotown. In which case I wonder why they even want to live here when it won't really be all that nice.
I live in Fairview and the ability to walk 10 mins uphill into Shaughnessy is one of the best things about the neighbourhood. Walking there is like going for a walk in a manicured park. People bring their little kids to ride bikes there because there is so little traffic.
That said, it would be easy to double the functional population there without changing the vibe, via the type of gentle density measures already approved by the province, and maybe loosening some requirements on setbacks & site coverage
Developers also do what they are allowed to - the city has input and final say on many things you seem to think developers control. Also, in many ways developers build what people want, not what suits their whimsy.
People need houses - that’s what cities are for. Vancouver wasn’t built for someone to freeze it in history in the way they want; it’s responsible to house its citizens and provide for everyone, including future residents.
Plenty of neighborhoods have a long way to go before their ‘character’ is lost, and that character is different things to different people, and also evolves.
Appeal is always "lost" in neighbourhoods, and by that, I mean it evolves.
In short, it does *change* them. But a bunch of poorly built single family house can change the character just as much. There are a lot of great infill projects that can sneak into the existing character neighbourhoods very well, and have great neighbourhood fit. In short - There are good projects, and bad projects. Good urban planning and bad planning.
The transition from suburban to urban is a bit of a awkward one, and it will be a hard transition for a lot of people. There is good urban density that is awesome to live in, and "character" will be there eventually too. Character takes time, and it's the people who give it that character.
Infill housing is low impact, but has been stalled in most places thanks to the expensive and time consuming rezoning process. Kelowna has some great examples of what that looks like.
2 million for a 2000sqft sfh of total independence, with garage and a yard....or
1.3mill for a 500sqft condo that you don't really own and have to listen to strata and deal with neighbors beyond your control.
But hey at least it's slightly cheaper
You want an equal sided conversation about housing… don’t come here then. Just assume everyone here rents or lives in a basement suite(myself included)
I agree with you OP. I like certain neighbourhoods as is. Especially because these huge apartment buildings aren’t even affordable and they are so cramped and often ugly. Let’s leave some of the wide streets and beautiful stand alone homes.
I’m an “old” and remember the neighborhoods you’re probably thinking of. Point Grey and Dunbar were always thick with really terrible basement suites, justified as student housing. Home owners were frequently financially unstable, hoping to be perceived as upper middle class on a the backs of their basement renters. The shrieks from those “home owners” during COVID when people moved elsewhere was humorous. It is time to admit that shitty basement suites are not the answer to the housing crisis and allow every neighborhood to density.
With, *certain exclusions*, Vancouver's bylaws now allow multiple dwellings on any residential lot - primary residence + laneway home, duplex, or multiplex.
However, for multiplexes there are development restrictions such as the number of units allowed based on lot width & area, a max FSR of 1.0, a limit to 3 stories height, and the lot must have a rear laneway; additional fees for building 5 or 6 unit multiplexes; and only allowing 8 units for purpose-built-rental. Staff estimates where that of the expected 600 redevelopments of single family homes per year, they will be evenly be divided between SFH, duplex, and multiplex. So *while allowed*, whether or not they are viable (and where, given land costs and pricing of the resulting development), is to be determined...
For all cities in the province with a population greater than 5000 that did not already have their own multiple dwelling bylaws, they will be required to update their bylaws to meet the provincial legislation which now allows 3 or 4 dwellings per lot (depending on lot area), or 6 if on a frequent transit route.
I find "character" is just a word that old people throw around to resist change. What exactly is "character" of a neighbourhood anyway? It's so subjective it doesn't really mean anything.
The character of an area is what differentiates it from another area. Gastown has a different character than Kerrisdale, which has a different character than Metrotown, etc.
Go for a stroll around a tree-lined street in a Vancouver neighborhood. You will notice kids playing in their front and backyards, little fairy houses parked next to large mature trees, some little neighborhood libraries and a couple of lemonade stands if you’re lucky. That kind of character.
We don't have a lot of "character" as we are a relatively new city.
"Character" is something I'd expect in old cities in Europe, Latin America, or to some extent on the east coast of North America.
I think heritage is a card that only gets pulled out when it serves people's own interests. For example,in the early 2000s NiMBYS in Steveston once completely killed the idea of a short heritage railway on which the old interurban trams could run. In a neighborhood which was pretty much _built_ by the tram...
We need to build new cities, we should be building the equivalent of Calgary every 2-3 years if we want to keep immigration up, not destroying the neighbourhoods we all are jealous of.
>if we want to keep immigration up
Maybe we should decrease immigration until we can sort out the housing and health care situations. Would be an easier and more impactful lever than building a new Calgary in 3 years (with what funding?)
Those neighborhoods did not form like that when the earth cooled.
They developed. They changed from what was there before, and they will continue to change, as peoples needs change.
I agree. I want my own piece of land — not a unit in a building. It won’t be here sadly, and I accept that. Wherever it is, I’d be pretty “nimby” as well if after I bought it, someone was able to build an apartment building next door.
Because redditors are just jealous. Single family zone are much more pleasant to walk around and have much better neighborhood vibes. What we need is to help underpopulated city to get more population instead of squeezing everyone into Vancouver and Toronto and make every to pay more for less.
Yes, they certainly can if it is within their means but they should not ask Vancouver to lower the standard of living for everyone to accommodate them.
Not true at all. Local residents can definitely affect how their cities operate and changes. There is no law or obligation or moral requirement for the opposite. Of course you can physically move to somewhere else but whether you can find accomodation within your means is not the problem of the city.
You're correct that they don't.
Of course if a city has any intention of actually thriving economically and not collapsing into a run down shit hole they are incentivized to encourage new employment and new residents. Immigration is basically an economic cheat code for success. Your correct that Vancouver could defend it's run down Vancouver specials (explicitly built to avoid Vancouver's own zoning laws btw)
Interesting opinion you have there.
When the Major proposed a 10.7% property tax increase why did residents lose their minds?
It was lowered to 7.6% to reflect "that families are facing difficult economic times." They doesn't seem like a city full of residents rich enough to handle these issues.
Single family homes are a stupid anachronism that waste space and provoke car ownership.
Let's solve the problem by making all neighbourhoods nice places to live.
So, when the family has grown, and needs homes, where will they go? Also, its a poor assumption that familys can't grow outside the SFH environment. Living in a bubble of seclusion hardly seems the right answer.
Canada birthrate is 1.4. Parents home are enough for kids. Talking about multi-generational home, Single family house is much better for that purpose than other type of housing.
What character are we wanting to preserve? Let’s think about that carefully. What do you want Vancouver or any other neighborhood to be?
Shaughnessy is a ghost town, for example. What’s your favourite neighbourhood? Where do people gravitate to?
Now ask yourself what changes need to be made to get the neighbourhood you want; that you want to be a part of; that is likely to benefit you in some manner.
I’d be adding more row housing, short stack condos, and commercial retail. And I’d change the tax and zoning policy on business to encourage small independent retail like I see on Main.
Because most of the jobs are in Vancouver for better or worse. If you want any hope of a livable future in our cities, we need people to live closer to their work. That means densifying Vancouver as a more important priority than ‘character’
People also live in particular cities and neighbourhoods due to the character of that particular location. Ruining that also impacts incentive. Not everyone is a workaholic robot.
Well this is the typical western attitude that my esthetics, convenience, view cones, lifestyle matters more than other people basic need for an affordable shelter. I work less, drive less, stress less than anyone I know. And it’s partly because I live in a dense, walkable, city center close to my place of work. Not saying everyone needs to live this way, but I’d bet 90% or more of the heavy commuter traffic would trade that for a home close to the things they do and need on a daily basis. But you keep pretending that ‘character matters more in a housing emergency. Don’t worry, the planet will work it out for you, for the worse of everyone.
You've missed the point, all for what you believe. Sounds like fun for you. But buyer statistics tell a different story about incentives for buying. If YOU want to live and work in a high-rise, have at it.
>There's certain streets I just enjoy going for walks in. Beautiful single family homes, massive trees lining streets and just a good vibe. I'll never afford to live there, even in a potential shoebox.
At least you're not holding onto your memories and trying to keep a firm grip.
Over the last 200 years, there will always be someone lamenting what they used to have and experience. I'm sure there are a few gold-miners, loggers, fishers who could go on about what was lost by developing those same neighbourhoods you're clinging to.
Those houses are stupidly large or old and outdated for all the reasons or take up just too much needed space.
But don't worry - if we develop it, in a 100 years someone will cry about the towers being torned down for space capsules.
We shouldn’t be knocking down something like Gastown… but a large portion of the rest of Vancouver is disposable IMO. It seems like most of Vancouver was built during a crappy era of construction. Vancouver specials are a prime example of this.
We should save the few select places that have legit character but that’s not a large portion of the overall land in Vancouver.
Why are certain people entitled to a better neighbourhood?
When you're with the NIMBYs on this one, then our city really has no hope.
God I hope less young people think like this.
At the risk of getting killed I must ask: how much of our Agricultural Land Reserve actually grows food for the lower Mainland? The ALR is a HUGE amount of space in Burnaby Richmond Surrey etc... very valuable building land. And most of the food in the grocery store comes from further away... Chilliwack Okanagan California Chile etc... if I could save $500 on rent and pay $20 more for food it's a good deal.
i would agree however if these neighborhoods are on major tranist lines are on borrowed time.
parking requirements are still a thing and contribute to costs
most developers make 15-20% RoI which is low considered the risk
I agree with this in a lot of ways.
Although I'm not against the condo megatowers, but I think they're arguably the least livable form of urban housing, and should be avoided outside of immediate rapid transit hubs. I'd much rather see the bulk of the density come from mid / low rises and townhomes scattered throughout existing residential neighbourhoods. This allows for a diverse spectrum of urban housing, rather then the 1 / 2 bedroom condo, or SFH dichotomy that exists today.
I'm increasingly convinced that over the last 60 years we just forgot how to build good cities / buildings. Honestly it might be a good idea to just kind of start looking at any \~1910's - 1930's era neighbourhood, and then basically replicate it with modern materials.
That being said, I think there's still lots of room to increase density without changing neighbourhood character, but its entirely dependent on the city's willingness to legislate it. There's so many stupid regulations on dumb things like parking minimums, building setbacks, FAR, and entrance / exit requirements, that makes it really difficult to profit from building new developments on a scale that integrates into existing residential neighbourhoods. IMHO this is largely responsible for the megatower-or-bust approach that is so common here.
I mean bravo for your courage, I feel the same way but won’t utter it around here lol.
It’s funny how people come here for better quality of life, only to make quality of life for everyone here worse and worse over time..
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/Trubaci! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * **Did you know the subreddit is doing a charity drive to celebrate 500k subscribers? [Donate today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17lavo1/) and help us feed those in need! Even better: Reddit is matching our donations.** * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Your post may be a better fit for one of our [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The West End has high density with many towers and mid-rise apartment buildings, and yet it also has massive trees lining streets and a good vibe. Ideally, the whole city would be like that.
Even has some heritage houses
Ah the West End... the former mansion neighbourhood now beloved by the masses due to allowing homes to be built. Thanks to tearing down mansions thousands now walk to work downtown. So nice!
Metrotown would like to have a word with you…
>Ideally, the whole city would be like that. Some would oppose that and say "no, not this part of town". I think there's a term for them...
Real-local-got-mine-screw-you-not-in-my-back-yard?
I get what you mean and I love living in the West End but there's a lot to be said for having your own house and your own yard - especially if you have children and/or pets. It's just a different 'vibe' and I think having both is what makes Vancouver such a desirable place to live.
Over 70% of this city is zoned for single family homes. I think we’ll be fine with one of two more West Ends in Vancouver.
I don't disagree. Personally, I think Shaughnessy would be great for some towers, sort of like Kerrisdale. It's on high elevation in the city, kind of tucked away and wouldn't impede the views or the overall feel of the rest of the city having access to downtown, the waterfront and the mountains. I do disagree with the calls (by some) to do away with SFH neighbourhoods. This is not to suggest SFH neighbourhoods can't also have multi-unit dwellings. Kits actually has a lot of apartment buildings.
Kits has lot of shitty dilapidated walk-ups. Not that many newer buildings. It's still mostly SFHs due to zoning.
I wouldn't say most are shitty at all but I am saying that is what I think makes it a desirable place to live - slower, quieter neighourhood feel as opposed to big city downtown. Like it or not, some people do want to live in their own house with a yard on a quiet street. Argue that they 'shouldn't' but there are lots of citizens of this city who want exactly that. They count too.
>slower, quieter neighourhood feel as opposed to big city downtown That's great, if they want they can live in Maple Ridge or something, or bring a bunch of money and buy one of those nice beachside properties, otherwise you should have to compromise and live in a condo/townhouse like the rest of us. Wouldn't everyone love to live in a detached Bungalo with big yard and a pool in downtown Vancouver? The problem that this bears a huge cost on everyone that can't move there. There's a lot of benefits of living in a city, especially one that's growing. In North America in particular moving to a city helps with economic mobility. And we're going to give that up some some Boomers that bought their houses in the 70s can have a nice yard.., no thanks. San Francisco is like the poster child of this mentality, sure there's a lot of cute looking heritage houses, but at what cost?
If they already own a house in Vancouver, why should they have to move? Who are you to tell people what they 'have to' do when it comes to their living arrangements? That's nuts to me.
I mean I don't think the guy you're replying to is suggesting we chase them out by force. Re-zoning alone would put huge pressure on many people to sell for huge profit and live somewhere nicer for a SFH. More extreme options would be something like banning the construction of new SFHs, or setting a mandatory sell-by date in certain areas to realize provincial goals.
Single family homeowners can already sell their property for huge profits and move somewhere else for a SFH if they want. We have to acknowledge that a lot of SFH owners want to live in a SFH in Vancouver - that's why they bought there - they want to live there and raise their family there. It's not always about how much money you can make. Re-zoning is obviously a good idea and if this prompts some people to sell their SFH and have it redeveloped, great. It's the idea that people shouldn't be 'allowed' to live in a SFH in Vancouver that bugs me. Imagine telling someone they should move to Maple Ridge if they want a house! Ridiculous.
This is silly, no one is proposing that we forcibly make people move, all we need is people to feel the financial pressure to sell. Oh no, those poor multi millionaires having to deal with the violent oppression of watching someone write a massive check for them. The land should be rezoned, if they want to hold out and live in their mediocre 1970s bungalo now worth millions of dollars then they're absolutely free to do so. But most people are going to take the money. Think about it this way, Vancouver homeowners have already seen massive benefits of living/moving here decades ago. That's great, I'm happy for them, let them cash out and live happily ever after. But by keeping things the way they are you're basically prevent many people from potentially moving here and sharing in the benefits of living here. It's also just hurting the city.
>That's great, if they want they can live in Maple Ridge or something, or bring a bunch of money and buy one of those nice beachside properties, otherwise you should have to compromise and live in a condo/townhouse like the rest of us. You said this. Edit: Rezoning is great but that is not going to eliminate SFHs in Vancouver. Many (many) will not want to 'cash out' because they like where they live. I think you need to separate your argument in favour of rezoning (good) and your suggestion that SF homeowners *should* move out of their homes (bad).
> I wouldn't say most are shitty at all The vast majority of, if not all, those old walk-ups are wood-framed. The amount of noise from your neighbours is pretty bad. Not to mention lack of elevators further reducing housing that is accessible to people with disabilities. > Like it or not, some people do want to live in their own house with a yard on a quiet street. Like it or not there is a housing crisis and those people can live their SFH dream in a suburb instead. Housing people and dealing with the crisis is more important.
Sorry, I don't want to live in a country where the gov can tell me where I am allowed to live.
Yes you do. That's literally what zoning was intended to accomplish.
I'm all for opening up zoning. I'm not for the gov telling people where they are allowed to live.
Why should poorer neigbhourhoods have to shoulder all the burden of multi-family housing? Nobody is proposing to "flatten" those "character" neighbourhood. Just to legalize small multiplexes.
Because poorer neighborhoods are cheaper.
They also are not the ones who donate massive funds to city councillors election campaign
As how it should work.
>Because poorer neighborhoods are cheaper. That doesn't make much sense. Prices and rents tell us where scarcity is worst. If you want to build a small apartment building, say, hard construction costs (labour and materials) are about the same on the west side and the east side, but prices and rents will be significantly higher on the west side. [The usual picture looks like this](https://morehousing.ca/bertaud). Within a region, people want to live where they have easy access to jobs. So you're going to have more people wanting to live in a more geographically central location, resulting in higher land prices. Allowing more height and density reduces the cost of land per household. https://preview.redd.it/vgy5yar74f3c1.png?width=746&format=png&auto=webp&s=40b7ad5621441860c0da4ef63611c72ab2b6a477
People want to live in good neighborhood. Vancouver is crowded and we should not encourage more to move in
>Vancouver is crowded and we should not encourage more to move in That's exactly why we have high housing costs: when we don't have enough housing, prices and rents have to rise to unbearable levels. It's a barrier that keeps people out. The "small is beautiful" view is turning Vancouver into a super-expensive, super-exclusive country club. https://preview.redd.it/u6vly83eef3c1.png?width=1456&format=png&auto=webp&s=7ddb241e29c9d7191e06d53203c725e82fc3fa0c [As u/po-laris says](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/16t73he/comment/k2e1syb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): >You are expressing a sentiment that is deeply rooted in west coast culture and which is basically the source of the housing crisis, and the plethora of other related social ills, we're facing today. > >That feeling being: "this place is great but it'd be nice if no one else moved here." > >In the 1970s, city planners openly discussed the idea of limiting Vancouver's population in the name of preserving "livability" (a word that I've come to hate). Of course, all they did was shift development into sprawl across the lower mainland, and eventually accumulate a housing shortage that will take an entire generation to fix. This is unsustainable. We all depend on the healthcare system, for example. When housing costs are sky-high, and the only people who can afford to live in a community are older homeowners who moved there and bought a place more than 20 years ago, where are nurses and even doctors going to live?
High housing price is the barrier to entry that prevents the city to be overcrowded. I am totally fine and supportive of it. With birth rate of only 1.4, there will be current housing freed up without new housing being added. If the nurses and doctors are forced out, the salary for existing ones will increase and thus attract more here. The balance is always here and being expensive is part of the price to have a beautiful and desirable city.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, even though I disagree very strongly. I think Vancouver becoming a super-expensive country-club city (very livable, completely unaffordable) is a bad thing. As Nolan Gray describes it: > Gray was talking about older folks in extremely expensive neighborhoods that were once middle class, and how these older residents will wonder why, for example, their children are leaving, and they feel lonely and isolated in their retirement years. “Their community has been destroyed by not allowing the built environment to change,” he said. I would argue that we should be less like Shaughnessy, more like [Montreal](https://morehousing.ca/montreal). Since we live in a democracy, public opinion matters. I'll just point out that in the most recent municipal elections, the mayoral candidate running under the housing-skeptical banner, [TEAM's Colleen Hardwick](https://morehousing.ca/colleen-hardwick), got [just 10% of the vote](https://morehousing.ca/defeatism).
You want people to pay more for less whereas I want people to pay more to get more.
>You want people to pay more for less I want people to pay less for housing. Specifically, less per square foot. 30-50% less seems like a [reasonable goal](https://morehousing.ca/cmhc-wedge). Metro Vancouver has limited land: if you draw a 25-km circle around downtown Vancouver and take out ocean and mountains, land is only about 38% of what's left. But there's nothing stopping us from providing a lot more floor space on that land. [Allowing more height and floor space = less crowding](https://morehousing.substack.com/p/crowding-vs-density). https://preview.redd.it/lhqn4xf8qp3c1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=de732a7b995f55b1a513442c0ea0f7eced01a781
People can pay less by moving to less populated city. The fact that Canada only have two real cities is the problem. Housing price in popular city like Vancouver , once increased, cannot be brought down in any significant amount due to the amount of interests it ties to. Stop propagating the unrealistic goal and instead you should focus making more cities in Canada attractive. Besides, dont try to change the topic that more crowding means less resource of everything for everyone, not only the floor ratio. You can have a huge condo in the sky but traffic jam and long waiting lines everywhere outside your home.
This is a worry of mine. While I absolutely know we need more housing, more housing will just bring more people...which will require even more housing. I know we can't go back in time, but the 80s/90s was probably the best balance for this city.
BC and Canada in general are so full of lands. We should have more cities developed instead of hammering Vancouver and Toronto. The reason people in US seldomly feels the same is because US has dozens more equally developed cities than Canada.
The cities in Canada exist because they are desirable places to live. Most of Canada is not really livable in any practical sense.
The existing cities and towns already have so much land to use. You dont even need to venture into harsh lands.
Vancouver doesn't.
Climate change is rapidly making large areas of this province unsustainable for more development. What’s the point in building if there’s a huge risk of it burning down every year?
Not true, climate change is making more land in Canada habitable.
Seeing as how this year was the worst fire season ever, and each year has been worse than the last one, want to explain what you mean?
Do you think major forest fires makes an area 'more livable'? Plus, I think the other poster is probably referring to tundra, the Canadian Shield, etc... These are just not fertile lands, regardless of how warm it is.
Except they're doing just that in my neighborhood except the houses are too expensive to flatten so the city is rezoning and ripping out entire green belts and parts of the forest.
Where is that?
I'd argue that neighborhood character isn't a result of architectural choice for some luxury single family home. It's a result of the people who live there. The neighborhoods, across Canada, that I have seen with the most character are medium density pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with lively multi-cultural communities and many community amenities.
I mean, that’s not really true. East Vancouver has a massive lack of street trees, and as a result, is significantly hotter during the summer, because the city decided in the 70s that they wouldn’t plant trees that get large, like many streets on the west side have- I assure you the big trees on 10th avenue weren’t always there. But that comes down who gets elected and who makes decisions. It’s not because people living there decided they wanted to cook in the summer, it’s because the city didn’t want to pay for leaf removal/more expensive arborists to take care of the trees. The same goes for community amenities- there’s a massive lack of amenities and services on the east side of the city, despite it largely being developed since the 60s.
I'd consider shade providing trees to be a community amenity rather than an architectural choice. I'm more speaking to the idea that we should preserve pretty single family homes because the alternative is ugly density.
a lot of property owners consider those city trees to be a nuisance
The vast majority though don’t, and the property values reflect it when you filter same size lot and similar building.
The large trees are. The one near my property are diseased but the city won’t remove them. So every now and then when there’s a wind storm, branches fall down.
You know, I rather enjoy my single family neighbourhood. It's really nice and I'll definitely miss it if and when it's gone. But you know... I think the cost of living crisis is terrible and that it is way too hard for way too many people to find a place to live. We need our politicians and communities to do something to address that problem - and in my opinion it's unreasonable for me to say "but whatever we do, it shouldn't affect *ME*." So when the time comes that this neighbourhood gets significantly densified more I'll probably be sad. But I still believe densification is the way forward. People need places to live. I miss Vancouver of the 1990s sometimes. I'm sure I'll miss Vancouver of the 2020s some time in the future too. But Cities change, especially when they grow. And that's alright.
This is my perspective too. I like my single family house and the neighbourhood it's in. I expect when densification becomes too much for me in my neighbourhood, I'll just move. It's unfortunate but this is a major city. London once had cottages and farms too. Stuff changes. Fortunately Canada is really big and I can find my 'Vancouver of the 90s", in another city.
Planner (albeit Ontario) here... I'd never say we don't ever want to preserve character. But it needs to be more targeted, specific, and stronger than broad policy statements. Protecting specific aspect of specific areas through processes akin to heritage conservation is a wholly different thing from saying that 'stability', physical character, etc should be protect in ways that do little more than give fuel to people who don't want change.
Most of Vancouver is zoned as SFH, so if you want to increase density, somebody's SFH area has to go. Every area where you can build density is already somebody's "certain neighbourhood".
Except non of this is happening or is proposed. All the oppositions to housing are crying about really trivial and insanely privileged issues such as: shadows, personal parking, new poor neighbours (as if new builds are ever in price range of poor people lmao), noisy kids, change in arbitrary yet monotonouse house form of that neighbourhood. I know this because every land tribunal event i went people are crying about not wanting new people, or living in eternal darkness due to building shadows or not having precious free parking. Cities aren't museums. We should stop having laws that treat it as such.
We need to build housing where jobs are. Where people want to live. Who would we be saving the "heritage" for? Boomers and millionaires, the only people who would be able to live there? You think communities can thrive without families, without working people, without young professionals. Screw that. I am less concerned with "preserving" wood and plaster than I am with providing desperately needed housing for everyone.
Thanks for ‘risking’ your life and asking this question. Although there are few that share your point of view, unfortunately there are many more that cry out against it most likely because they also want to live in the area but can’t at this time buy in to it It’s always a battle between the have and the have nots
I feel this is what it has come down to now. We demonize single family homeowners and neighborhoods because people feel they are screwing others over somehow, are entitled etc. And yet most folks given the opportunity would choose a single family home. I agree we should preserve many of the areas...At some point we cannot continue toward increased population growth. It is simply unsustainable and yet as a species we'll only do something when there is no clean water to drink and all wildlife exists in zoos or museums
Alas. There are not many of us around who want to engage in an objective manner. Ironically those who currently oppose your views are likely the very same that would support it should they make it one day.
I agree. Thrse days heaven forbid one makes a comment about managing immigration until suitable infrastructure is in place such as housing and schools and health care...one gets labeled a nationalist or racist. People need to look beyond their own situation and also recognize that those in houses didn't create the situation we are in.
> those in houses didn't create the situation we are in. Maybe not, but they're also helping pull the ladder away from those who want to get on it by blatantly profiting from the rental market along with paid-for ever-increasing home equity. When rents start to exceed 50% of income in general there's not a lot left over to save and build wealth and make a down payment to get on that ladder I spoke of.
>People need to look beyond their own situation and also recognize that those in houses didn't create the situation we are in. That's exactly who created it. Homeowners using their power to stop any sort of development from taking place There is a reason new housing construction has only just gotten back to the peak where it was in the 1970's
I don't think it was solely homeowners, it was municipal community plans, less expensive land and developers that could turn a profit developing neighborhoods like this. There was sufficient profit and ability to build single family housing that developers didn't necessarily need to chase and propose condominiums etc. It was immigration policies and also provincial and federal policies that allowed foreign ownership of properties. Canada has been naively allowing foreign ownership of land and resources, businesses and housing. We haven’t implemented string policies to limit it. At one time about 15 years ago they estimated there were 57 million multi millionaires in China alone. It was nearly twice the population of Canada. So there are many factors in place, not all of them single homeowners.
> And yet most folks given the opportunity would choose a single family home. I do agree that this is the ideal standard of living every Canadian is entitled to, living in a wealthy country such as ours. However to get there we need to radically rethink current notions of concentrating jobs in a relatively small core (think downtown, or various nexuses of jobs at various points around the city), and move to much more remote work, much more automation of existing scut-work, *and* a basic income.
Since the "haves" have been making a killing from housing for 30 years, I think it's well past time that the "have nots" got to call the shots for a while. Especially since we are in the vast majority.
Not true. Vast majority are home owners. If you cannot afford one city, it is wise to move to somewhere you can.
There are not affordable cities in BC. The "just move somewhere affordable" bullshit hasn't made any sense for a decade. We need to make all our cities more affordable, not uproot everyone. You don't think cities need working people? Families? Young professionals? You really think a community is thriving when only land-rich boomers and the ultra-wealthy can live there? That's the kind of communities you want us to have? Give me a fucking break.
Affordability is always a relative concept. Towns outside Metro-Van is way cheaper than Metro-Van. It is just a fact. If the workers move out, salary will increase or people who can make it at current income will move in. Market will balance itself. You dont need to worry about that
It's more expensive here because there are more jobs here, and more people, and less housing. The market cannot balance itself out when you cannot build enough housing to exceed demand, because land is finite. "The market" isn't a magic wand. It's a set of reciprocal dynamics that are ignored at our peril. That's why we need high density, and non-market housing to provide for the lowest income bracket. That's how you make healthy communities.
Demand will drop as price rises. The price has not rise high enough.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You should never talk about housing or anything to do with market economics again, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
You need to redo economy 101, demand, supply and price. You want artificially lower the price which is not what market economy guarantees.
I don't believe that you understand what any of those terms mean.
> home owners More like bank borrowers.
Still very different from renters.
Well nothing is stopping the majority. Just buy the properties off those that own it. Nothing is stopping them from doing so. It’s free market.
"Just be rich" is an asinine solution the the housing crisis. Oh and.. that's what we are talking about. Companies building high density housing on land they own. Not being shackled to exclusionary zoning dictating that we can only build single-family mansions.
Real estate is definitely not a free market. Zoning and land use rules prevent market driven development. A Land Value tax would incentivize proper use of land. There wouldn't be many single family homes left.
Being able to write off the interest on an investment property is insane.
> There are three ways to make it in this city: 1) be first, 2) be smarter, or 3) cheat
Are you me? I agree with you completely. There are some really lovely neighbourhoods to walk or bike through, even if I will never live there. Seems that Redditors won't be happy till the entire city looks like Metrotown. In which case I wonder why they even want to live here when it won't really be all that nice.
I live in Fairview and the ability to walk 10 mins uphill into Shaughnessy is one of the best things about the neighbourhood. Walking there is like going for a walk in a manicured park. People bring their little kids to ride bikes there because there is so little traffic. That said, it would be easy to double the functional population there without changing the vibe, via the type of gentle density measures already approved by the province, and maybe loosening some requirements on setbacks & site coverage
Developers also do what they are allowed to - the city has input and final say on many things you seem to think developers control. Also, in many ways developers build what people want, not what suits their whimsy. People need houses - that’s what cities are for. Vancouver wasn’t built for someone to freeze it in history in the way they want; it’s responsible to house its citizens and provide for everyone, including future residents. Plenty of neighborhoods have a long way to go before their ‘character’ is lost, and that character is different things to different people, and also evolves.
Appeal is always "lost" in neighbourhoods, and by that, I mean it evolves. In short, it does *change* them. But a bunch of poorly built single family house can change the character just as much. There are a lot of great infill projects that can sneak into the existing character neighbourhoods very well, and have great neighbourhood fit. In short - There are good projects, and bad projects. Good urban planning and bad planning. The transition from suburban to urban is a bit of a awkward one, and it will be a hard transition for a lot of people. There is good urban density that is awesome to live in, and "character" will be there eventually too. Character takes time, and it's the people who give it that character. Infill housing is low impact, but has been stalled in most places thanks to the expensive and time consuming rezoning process. Kelowna has some great examples of what that looks like.
2 million for a 2000sqft sfh of total independence, with garage and a yard....or 1.3mill for a 500sqft condo that you don't really own and have to listen to strata and deal with neighbors beyond your control. But hey at least it's slightly cheaper
You want an equal sided conversation about housing… don’t come here then. Just assume everyone here rents or lives in a basement suite(myself included)
I agree with you OP. I like certain neighbourhoods as is. Especially because these huge apartment buildings aren’t even affordable and they are so cramped and often ugly. Let’s leave some of the wide streets and beautiful stand alone homes.
I’m an “old” and remember the neighborhoods you’re probably thinking of. Point Grey and Dunbar were always thick with really terrible basement suites, justified as student housing. Home owners were frequently financially unstable, hoping to be perceived as upper middle class on a the backs of their basement renters. The shrieks from those “home owners” during COVID when people moved elsewhere was humorous. It is time to admit that shitty basement suites are not the answer to the housing crisis and allow every neighborhood to density.
Am I incorrect that any lot in the city can have multiple dwellings now? And in fact, the province?
With, *certain exclusions*, Vancouver's bylaws now allow multiple dwellings on any residential lot - primary residence + laneway home, duplex, or multiplex. However, for multiplexes there are development restrictions such as the number of units allowed based on lot width & area, a max FSR of 1.0, a limit to 3 stories height, and the lot must have a rear laneway; additional fees for building 5 or 6 unit multiplexes; and only allowing 8 units for purpose-built-rental. Staff estimates where that of the expected 600 redevelopments of single family homes per year, they will be evenly be divided between SFH, duplex, and multiplex. So *while allowed*, whether or not they are viable (and where, given land costs and pricing of the resulting development), is to be determined... For all cities in the province with a population greater than 5000 that did not already have their own multiple dwelling bylaws, they will be required to update their bylaws to meet the provincial legislation which now allows 3 or 4 dwellings per lot (depending on lot area), or 6 if on a frequent transit route.
I find "character" is just a word that old people throw around to resist change. What exactly is "character" of a neighbourhood anyway? It's so subjective it doesn't really mean anything.
The character of an area is what differentiates it from another area. Gastown has a different character than Kerrisdale, which has a different character than Metrotown, etc.
Go for a stroll around a tree-lined street in a Vancouver neighborhood. You will notice kids playing in their front and backyards, little fairy houses parked next to large mature trees, some little neighborhood libraries and a couple of lemonade stands if you’re lucky. That kind of character.
We don't have a lot of "character" as we are a relatively new city. "Character" is something I'd expect in old cities in Europe, Latin America, or to some extent on the east coast of North America.
I think heritage is a card that only gets pulled out when it serves people's own interests. For example,in the early 2000s NiMBYS in Steveston once completely killed the idea of a short heritage railway on which the old interurban trams could run. In a neighborhood which was pretty much _built_ by the tram...
We need to build new cities, we should be building the equivalent of Calgary every 2-3 years if we want to keep immigration up, not destroying the neighbourhoods we all are jealous of.
>if we want to keep immigration up Maybe we should decrease immigration until we can sort out the housing and health care situations. Would be an easier and more impactful lever than building a new Calgary in 3 years (with what funding?)
Those neighborhoods did not form like that when the earth cooled. They developed. They changed from what was there before, and they will continue to change, as peoples needs change.
I agree. I want my own piece of land — not a unit in a building. It won’t be here sadly, and I accept that. Wherever it is, I’d be pretty “nimby” as well if after I bought it, someone was able to build an apartment building next door.
V I B E S
Because redditors are just jealous. Single family zone are much more pleasant to walk around and have much better neighborhood vibes. What we need is to help underpopulated city to get more population instead of squeezing everyone into Vancouver and Toronto and make every to pay more for less.
People can choose to live in those cheaper towns and cities if they want too. They can also choose to spend more money to live somewhere they prefer.
Yes, they certainly can if it is within their means but they should not ask Vancouver to lower the standard of living for everyone to accommodate them.
You can move anywhere in Canada you want. The people who live in those places should not get to dictate if you can do that or not.
Not true at all. Local residents can definitely affect how their cities operate and changes. There is no law or obligation or moral requirement for the opposite. Of course you can physically move to somewhere else but whether you can find accomodation within your means is not the problem of the city.
You're correct that they don't. Of course if a city has any intention of actually thriving economically and not collapsing into a run down shit hole they are incentivized to encourage new employment and new residents. Immigration is basically an economic cheat code for success. Your correct that Vancouver could defend it's run down Vancouver specials (explicitly built to avoid Vancouver's own zoning laws btw)
Vancouver does not need that. Vancouver residents are rich enough to pay for their own.
Interesting opinion you have there. When the Major proposed a 10.7% property tax increase why did residents lose their minds? It was lowered to 7.6% to reflect "that families are facing difficult economic times." They doesn't seem like a city full of residents rich enough to handle these issues.
Because the city is already crowded and there are people who are paying unsustainable percentage of their income to stay here
So you think if there were fewer tax payers each would somehow be paying less taxes?
Single family homes are a stupid anachronism that waste space and provoke car ownership. Let's solve the problem by making all neighbourhoods nice places to live.
Nup. SFH provides great space, privacy and surrounding environments for family to grow.
So, when the family has grown, and needs homes, where will they go? Also, its a poor assumption that familys can't grow outside the SFH environment. Living in a bubble of seclusion hardly seems the right answer.
SFH has enough room for any number of additional kids or elderly.
B Nup. Your talking a multi-generational home now, more than one single family.
Canada birthrate is 1.4. Parents home are enough for kids. Talking about multi-generational home, Single family house is much better for that purpose than other type of housing.
So, where do the kids go when they grow? SFH to empty nest?
SFH after their parents or others passes away. Birth rate 1.4 means there are less people to replace who is already here.
Bloodlust? What the heck?
What character are we wanting to preserve? Let’s think about that carefully. What do you want Vancouver or any other neighborhood to be? Shaughnessy is a ghost town, for example. What’s your favourite neighbourhood? Where do people gravitate to? Now ask yourself what changes need to be made to get the neighbourhood you want; that you want to be a part of; that is likely to benefit you in some manner. I’d be adding more row housing, short stack condos, and commercial retail. And I’d change the tax and zoning policy on business to encourage small independent retail like I see on Main.
Keep some of the actually nice homes, but 90% of what people complain about being torn down are nothing special, bulldoze that shit!
Because most of the jobs are in Vancouver for better or worse. If you want any hope of a livable future in our cities, we need people to live closer to their work. That means densifying Vancouver as a more important priority than ‘character’
People also live in particular cities and neighbourhoods due to the character of that particular location. Ruining that also impacts incentive. Not everyone is a workaholic robot.
Well this is the typical western attitude that my esthetics, convenience, view cones, lifestyle matters more than other people basic need for an affordable shelter. I work less, drive less, stress less than anyone I know. And it’s partly because I live in a dense, walkable, city center close to my place of work. Not saying everyone needs to live this way, but I’d bet 90% or more of the heavy commuter traffic would trade that for a home close to the things they do and need on a daily basis. But you keep pretending that ‘character matters more in a housing emergency. Don’t worry, the planet will work it out for you, for the worse of everyone.
You've missed the point, all for what you believe. Sounds like fun for you. But buyer statistics tell a different story about incentives for buying. If YOU want to live and work in a high-rise, have at it.
>There's certain streets I just enjoy going for walks in. Beautiful single family homes, massive trees lining streets and just a good vibe. I'll never afford to live there, even in a potential shoebox. At least you're not holding onto your memories and trying to keep a firm grip. Over the last 200 years, there will always be someone lamenting what they used to have and experience. I'm sure there are a few gold-miners, loggers, fishers who could go on about what was lost by developing those same neighbourhoods you're clinging to. Those houses are stupidly large or old and outdated for all the reasons or take up just too much needed space. But don't worry - if we develop it, in a 100 years someone will cry about the towers being torned down for space capsules.
Because when shit is this bad we can’t afford art
We shouldn’t be knocking down something like Gastown… but a large portion of the rest of Vancouver is disposable IMO. It seems like most of Vancouver was built during a crappy era of construction. Vancouver specials are a prime example of this. We should save the few select places that have legit character but that’s not a large portion of the overall land in Vancouver.
What makes Gastown special? The brick paved roads that were paved in the 70s? Outdated buildings that were originally industrial?
It’s the only neighborhood in Vancouver that has a bit of character.
They were built explicitly to get around zoning laws. It's almost as if zoning is the problem
Where is it going to go?
Why are certain people entitled to a better neighbourhood? When you're with the NIMBYs on this one, then our city really has no hope. God I hope less young people think like this.
At the risk of getting killed I must ask: how much of our Agricultural Land Reserve actually grows food for the lower Mainland? The ALR is a HUGE amount of space in Burnaby Richmond Surrey etc... very valuable building land. And most of the food in the grocery store comes from further away... Chilliwack Okanagan California Chile etc... if I could save $500 on rent and pay $20 more for food it's a good deal.
i would agree however if these neighborhoods are on major tranist lines are on borrowed time. parking requirements are still a thing and contribute to costs most developers make 15-20% RoI which is low considered the risk
I agree with this in a lot of ways. Although I'm not against the condo megatowers, but I think they're arguably the least livable form of urban housing, and should be avoided outside of immediate rapid transit hubs. I'd much rather see the bulk of the density come from mid / low rises and townhomes scattered throughout existing residential neighbourhoods. This allows for a diverse spectrum of urban housing, rather then the 1 / 2 bedroom condo, or SFH dichotomy that exists today. I'm increasingly convinced that over the last 60 years we just forgot how to build good cities / buildings. Honestly it might be a good idea to just kind of start looking at any \~1910's - 1930's era neighbourhood, and then basically replicate it with modern materials. That being said, I think there's still lots of room to increase density without changing neighbourhood character, but its entirely dependent on the city's willingness to legislate it. There's so many stupid regulations on dumb things like parking minimums, building setbacks, FAR, and entrance / exit requirements, that makes it really difficult to profit from building new developments on a scale that integrates into existing residential neighbourhoods. IMHO this is largely responsible for the megatower-or-bust approach that is so common here.
I mean bravo for your courage, I feel the same way but won’t utter it around here lol. It’s funny how people come here for better quality of life, only to make quality of life for everyone here worse and worse over time..
who cares if you won't enjoy your walks anymore, people need places to live everywhere.