“Sounds like you had a good meeting, Dad.” I had just finished recapping my recent group discussion about affordability while breakfasting with my son on Granville Island before our regular bike ride around False Creek.
He continued: “I like the simplicity of, what is it, your Affordability Triage Analysis, although the name is a bit of a tongue twister.” He smiled. “But does it work?”
I paused to think for a moment, using coffee and a muffin to give me a moment to reflect.
“I think it works,” I responded. “Let’s carry on with our ride and I’ll sketch something when we’re done.” He knows I always carry a small notebook and pen to capture ideas and thoughts—at my age, if I don’t, I’ll probably lose them! He agreed by pushing off at his usual aggressive pace.
As we cycled, I used our route’s simplicity and familiarity to allow me to turn over the complexities of affordability. Informing any affordability discussion is a blizzard of information and opinion—how best to identify what is most essential to affordability? What needs to be addressed as a precondition to all the other issues a city needs to consider?
There are many worthy city policy areas, such as neighbourhood supports, commerce, transportation, safety, reconciliation, climate change and city operations. But we must focus on affordability if you agree with City Conversation Part 1’s thesis that in our current civic meltdown, without affordability the city will die while we aspire to something best dealt with at another level of government or set aside for later consideration.
“Why don’t you go get us coffee and lunch,” I suggested to my son after we had returned to Granville Island. “My treat!” It was always my treat, but in this case would give me some minutes to start sketching an answer to his “does it work?” question.
By the time he returned with food and drink (I wouldn’t have chosen drippy tacos!), I was somewhat ready with a rough triage diagram.
“I’ve identified six of the most common planning, design and construction ideas that affect affordability and need discussion.” I turned my notebook towards him (architects are used to reading upside down) and showed him the table at the head of this Conversation.
After a moment he looked up at me, half smiling. “I think I may get the Ideas but you’re going to have to explain, the Yes, No, Maybe comment to me—I may guess at some, but best to assume my guesses are just that. Let’s start at the top, because I’m not at all sure why Build higher gets a “No” in the Accommodation column?”[i]
I answered: “Although high-rise construction near amenities such as SkyTrain stations will always put more folks closer to where they might want to go, high-rise or really anything above conventional four to six storey wood-frame construction, costs significantly more to build[ii]; and even the potential for a higher building raises the land price of the site as well as all the undeveloped sites around it.”
“Okay,” he responded, “I get the “No” in the Accommodations column, and the “Yes” in Amenity, but why the “& no” there, and the straight “No” under Aspiration?”
“Although high-rise homes often provide great views for their residents, they also block views, shade and overlook existing neighbours—so existing residents’ amenity is reduced.”[iii]
He frowned, adding, “But don’t we have to expect some of that as the city grows?”
“Yes and no,” I answered, pointing to what I’d written in the column. “We need to have conversations with affected neighbourhoods before just imposing high buildings on them. Fairview Slopes is a good case in point. When it was developed after the south shore of False Creek, there was an expectation that False Creek South would remain more or less as it is for the long term. In 2018, the city changed the rules affecting lease renewals in False Creek without consulting either of the affected neighbourhoods. If redevelopment occurs there as currently contemplated, Slopes residents’ views of the rest of the city and the water and mountains will pretty much all be lost.”
“The other part of “No”,” I continued, “is perhaps more theoretical—many academic urban planning studies have identified that most folks prefer to live closer to ground.” He nodded understanding.
“Build denser, “Yes & no,”” he continued to the next line. “Let’s have it.”
“Again, not black and white,” I responded, “density also lets more folks live closer to amenities, and if it’s achieved in a lower height form—perhaps four storeys instead of 40—its construction will at least be more affordable. BUT,” I pointed at him for emphasis, “whenever denser new development replaces already dense older homes, such as the walk up apartment building where you currently live, then housing affordability is lost for the existing residents.[iv] An already dense suburb of Boston has changed its zoning such that greater density is only considered when all of the replacement homes are affordable—not 30% like here in Vancouver (where social housing is defined as having only 30% of homes actually linked to income). So, “Yes” for infill, laneway housing, etc., “No” for demo-viction such as we saw wholesale at Little Mountain and piecemeal in many other places.”
“And,” I continued, “Amenity is “Yes” rather than “Yes & no” because if it’s low-rise or infill, then it’s less likely to mess with views and shadowing as well as being closer to the ground for the new residents.”
“Build closer to transit,” I carried on, “is like “Build denser” for pretty much the same reasons.” He nodded agreement. “But “Build more” is messier.” He waited for my explanation.
“Ironically, although all levels of government suggest building more housing will improve affordability, it’s actually an unproven narrative promoted by governments that like the fees and new taxes, as well as builders and developers for whom more supply means more work and more profit. Economist studies conclude that for residents, more is not more affordable at all.”[v]
He interjected: “But what about the folks, I think they’re called YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yard), who say you’re the villain (I live in a single-family home), preventing redevelopment in your neighbourhood?”
“Again,” I answered, “economists who have studied YIMBY “theory” and places where they have championed more development have concluded YIMBY only results in more luxury housing and more real estate profits—those who don’t have a conflict of interest say YIMBY does not work. Period.”[vi]
“I like “Build for locals,” being one” he smiled and continued to the next line. “I understand that “Yes”!”
“More and more independent analyses,” I continued, “are showing that much of our home price escalation over the past decade arises from non-resident investors who treat homes as an investment.”[vii] He grunted agreement—even he had heard this.
“So “Build easier” seems like a no-brainer,” he pointed to the last line, “but maybe you have something there that I’m unaware of?”
“As the originator of Vancouver’s laneway housing concept way back in 2007,[viii] I investigated doing just that in our back yard. By the time I’d added more than $30,000 in permit costs and delays to actual construction costs[ix], I calculated I’d be dead at least 20 years before breaking even!”
“We need to make much development red tape and non-construction costs go away. Although I disagree with some of its conclusions, the final report of a recent BC Government expert panel[x] focused much attention on the high cost of often unnecessary government reviews and approvals—it’s been estimated these easily add $100,000 per unit to the end cost of even the smallest homes, such as the studio you live in.”
“Gee, Dad,” he responded, “since my studio is in an already-developed older building, can I just get that $100,000 sent direct to me?” We both smiled.
My notebook was now way too messy, but cleaned up while my son went off to get dessert, it looked like this when he returned:
“This is all making more sense, to me, Dad,” he commented after a few moments. “You’re right—there’s lots of conflicting information out there, but when you boil it down to these six Ideas, I can get my head around it. Maybe after our next ride you can tell me how you’d actually implement the good bits of these ideas, as well as managing the bad.” With that, he hugged me and headed off to his affordable-for-the-moment older building studio, leaving me to ponder my homework.
Brian Palmquist is a fully vaccinated Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, so not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 40+ year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.”
[i] [i] A recent study by economist Tyler Cowen noted in https://bit.ly/afford01 —(focused on Chicago)
[ii] During a recent tour of a mid-rise Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) project in Vancouver, the inventor/developer confirmed the best he hoped for was costs comparable to concrete construction. I like CLT for its environmental appropriateness, but it’s not as affordable as conventional wood-frame.
[iv] “The Killing of Alma Blackwell” housing, Jak King at https://bit.ly/afford02
[v] “Housing, Urban Growth and Inequalities,” by economic geographers Andrés Rodriguez-Pose and Michael Storper at https://bit.ly/afford01
[vi] YIMBY (Yes in my Backyard) works against, not in favour of affordability—Nathan J. Robinson at https://bit.ly/afford04
[vii] “BC has more Non-Resident Owned Properties than Almost Everywhere else in Canada, Christina Chandra, https://bit.ly/afford03 Also, how Canadian tax authorities hid a study showing the impact of illicit foreign capital on Vanouver area real estate at https://bit.ly/afford07
[viii] Ladner, Peter, “Green granny flats could solve the middle-income housing crisis,” December 1st, 2007.
[ix] The $30,000 included development and building permit fees, additional servicing fees, utility fees—these fees have all increased in the years since, while time frames have lengthened.
[x] Opening doors: unlocking housing supply for affordability” At https://bit.ly/afford05