City Conversation # 34: The Broadway Plan is the urban planning carpet bombing of Kitsilano, Fairview, South Granville and Mount Pleasant. We only have a week to say “Stop it!”
Interesting analysis provided in 2007 by the City's own Metro Core Land Use Policy:
"Beyond 25 Years The aim of this study is to ensure job space needed by 2031 will be available. Preliminary analysis shows that the policy directions could provide the job space capacity to allow future jobs to be accommodated on sites that would realistically be available for development during the next 25 years. To achieve this outcome some areas will require protection of these sites for future job growth and development cycles. The job space supply and demand balance will also need to be reviewed in the future to monitor changes in job space demand, and to account for new sites that may add to the supply as the building stock in the Metro Core ages (see above evaluation criteria). The amount of residential capacity available for future population growth in the Metro Core is also an important consideration for the economy. The employees who are integral to economic growth in the Metro Core need diverse, affordable housing, as well as good jobs close to home. A recent analysis of population growth and the demand for housing shows that residential areas in the Metro Core have sufficient capacity within existing zoning to meet the demand for new residential space. As such, the Metro Core Team is confident that sufficient housing opportunities exist without adding additional housing to areas required to meet additional job space requirements."
After all their denials, it would appear the COV does have the ability to analyze current capacity. And yes, things have changed over the last 15 years but Census data suggests not that much. Bit of a smoking gun...
We need to drastically upzone the areas surrounding Broadway to create spaces for new businesses and residents. We've tried many things to stabilize rents and housing prices (vacancy tax, foreign buyers tax. etc.) but we haven't tried drastically increasing the housing supply. So let's try it.
Actually, Vancouver and many other BC communities have already built more housing than population increase alone merits. See the UBCM report referenced in CC #37. Vancouver has already spot rezoned a 20-year housing supply, mostly the wrong kind. The Broadway plan is another 20-year supply by itself, also mostly the wrong kind.
I recently learned that CoV has a "revenue stream" and recieves approximately 25% for new developments and redevelopments - can someone please forward me the data or paper trail on this?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. For each spot rezoning, the city receives a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) that is negotiable and goes to general revenues—it's supposed to go to "community amenities" such as parks, comm centres, etc., but the fine print lets the city do what they want with it. Each new project (whether rezoned or not) also pays a Development Cost Levy (DCL) which is usually calculated by a formula that varies somewhat in different parts of the city. DCLs are supposed to be used for things like the sewer connections, sidewalks, etc. Staff report to Council periodically on what they've collected, but it tends to be sums rather than individual amounts. Does that help?
The present City Council and Planning Department are clearly representing the development and construction sector of our region and will gut the diversity and vitality of Vancouver and consequently the whole lower mainland. STOP THIS BLATANT LAND GRAB BY THE WEALTHY FOR PROFIT ONLY. We need a COMMUNITY BUILDING COUNCIL and PLANNERS WITH A CONSCIENCE for a LIVABLE CITY! Vote the LOT OUT! Thank you Brian Palmquist
Thanks Brian. I will keep sending them updates but they will still be surprised when they find themselves living in a dark concrete jungle. I am trying to be hopefully for the next election saving something of course that would mean waiting on approving the plan until after the election.
Hi Brian I live in Fairview Slopes and have made the best effort I can to give my input to all the changes in the Broadway Plan. I spoke at the council meeting about the Birch St tower and am on the mailing list for the FSGHC so I have read all your articles. The frustration I feel about getting my neighbours to care or notice what is going on never ends. I have managed to get a few people in my building to actively participate in this process but everyone seems resigned to accept what the city is doing. If entire neighbourhoods took the time to say no things would be different and they will all complain when the plans become reality. The city is counting on apathy and we are delivering that sediment well. The city also makes the windows for participation so short and inconvenient even people keeping up can miss opportunities to make their concerns known. I have owned my home and all of this is making its value rise at shocking rates you think that would make me happy but enjoying the beginning of my retirement in a livable functioning neighborhood is more important to me. My complex is right beside the VGH flight path so I actually may end up with some sunshine and a view when this is all done. I would like to tell you a tale of the effects I already see in my complex. It is small complex 16 units in the first 5 years I lived here we had 4 rental units that we we all happy to accommodate we lost one 15 years ago when the market first spiked and in just the last month we have lost two, the last one is expected to go soon. These condos housed nurses, teachers and almost always a family of four, middle class people the city claims to want to attract. Just this loss in my small complex nullifies the few sad family units the Birch St tower claimed to be adding. The profit on sales has been to much for the owners to resist and the people purchasing them are not looking for an investment property like people used too no one has the income to own two homes in the city anymore they buy one and live in it. Unless of course you are ultra rich and buying multiple units in the new towers, those people don’t want to purchase the properties already existing there is less money in that. I do appreciate all the work your are doing trying to warn people at least when everyone complains we can say we tried. Sorry for the long post but unlike so many people I talk to this might actually interest you.
Margeaux, I am hearing more and more stories like yours—seldom dramatic except for those living them. Thanks for speaking up.
Folks from many other parts covered by the Broadway Plan are also speaking up. Each time an informed person digs in a bit, they are aghast at what they are finding. Please keep trying to engage your neighbours in this. Take care.
Not sure what you mean, Cynthia. The city's presentation of Broadway Plan (BP) land use policies is sufficiently confusing that I have no idea what's possible in the BP, unlike in Burnaby, where requirements are very straightforward (20% or don't bother applying).
Nobody seems interested in funding co-ops. Period. Sad.
Hi Brian, I am impressed your calculations and conclusions. I think they make good sense. However, as a renter, and a senior with an income a bit below median, my preoccupation is with affordable rentals. Where could an adequate number of those come from, in virtually any development scenario? The future I currently see is that my wife and I, and perhaps a third of the current inhabitants of this City, are going to be either living in crowded squalor or forced to move not only out of the City, but out of the Province, sometime in the coming decade.
Dale, I see two parallel streams of activity at the moment:
1. All rezonings paused until there is a complete overhaul of the planning processes; many will ba abandoned;
2. As part of that reset, all renters are protected as they now are in Burnaby—each demovicted renter gets to come back to a new rental apartment at the same rent they left, and with the same 1-2% annual increase that applies to rentals throughout the province;
3. Also like Burnaby, a minimum % of affordable rentals is set for each project. In Burnaby it's 20%, meaning: a developer wants to build 100 homes on a site that currently houses 12 rentals; those 12 receive rental assistance (temporary relocation and $ support) until the replacement building is ready; because 20% is the minimum for affordable rentals, 20% of 100 units = 20 apartments must be made available at the same lower rents as those existing, temporarily displaced renters. I like this scenario because it should build the affordable rental stock over time.
There will be many details to work out around the mechanics of this. But prohjects like this are proceeding in Burnaby, so can happen here—we just need to lay out the rules and stick to them.
Thank you Brian, you've pointed me in a useful direction. I'm going to do a thorough read of Burnaby's and Vancouver's rental protections policies. My first read does give me a modicum of faint hope:-)
From a higher altitude perspective, I don't see how we'll solve housing shortages and mismatches until we are able to do a really good job of quantifying the housing available for each household income band, and then commit to responsive targets for housing retention and for new builds that meet the needs of those who are here (rather than those who'll come here to replace them.) I'm thinking of an input-output model. A well-designed model would inform rezoning plans, outreach to senior governments, and policy development - year after year, plan after plan. Rolling targets, but you keep feeding the model and it helps you see where the targets need to go. Or at least it will keep reminding us of how far short we're falling.
If City governments don't accurately quantify housing need and then set targets that meet those needs, for every income band, then the current driving-out of below-median-income households from the city will accelerate. It seems likely that without a good quantification of present and future needs by income band we'll end up year after year meeting only the needs of a lucky few lottery winners, at best.
Well, yes, correcting the failure of our almost-fully-commodified housing market to provide homes for people, as opposed to ROI for institutional investors, is a Herculean chore, and most City governments are going to satisfy themselves with doing a modicum of good, and meeting a bit of the need, as opposed to taking on the urgently-needed paradigm shift in housing.
I wonder which civic party would be willing to tackle this :-)
Sorry Brian, I've gone way off the track of your article, which is a very useful one. I do think, though, that driving out modest-income households, or condemning them to hideous housing, undercuts everything and does harm to our whole community.
It is all a swirling whirlwind of numbers and acronyms, Brian. Let's try to put some sense back into the discussion, as you have done here.
Carpet bombing—great metaphor! I see towers of all sizes landing in the neighborhoods as being <b>neighborhood-busting bombs!</b>
Imagine living in a house and the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> permitting a tower built next door in the house once occupied by your old neighbors. How long could you stand the noise and the racket during the demolition and construction process before you moved out? Or the coming and going from 150 people or more living where just 5 people used to live before?
The census is out for 2021 and it shows Vancouver still growing by 1% per year. It's been doing that since the Skytrain started building back in 1980. At 1% growth the city doubles its population every 72 years. We have a population of 662,248, 8th largest in Canada. For planning purposes we estimate 2.2 people per residential 'unit' (800 SF).
You are reporting 257,000 new residents locating in the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> area alone. That's adding 39% of the current population, or 28 years of growth at 1%. So, more or less the 30 years the Broadway Corridor Plan advertises.
However, these 257,000 residents represents the number of new comers settling in ALL parts of the city, over the next 28 years.
The <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> has the 257,000 residents being shoe-horned into just the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> area. The city measures 44.5 square miles. The <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> covers just 5 square miles, or about 1/10 of the footprint of the city.
So, ALL of the contemplated growth in the city for the next 30 years—using just-released census data—is proposed crammed into an area just 1/10th the size of the city?
To put it another way, the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> is cramming 10-times more population that can be expected to arrive in our city over the next 30 years!
Ten Times!!
Not only that, but the growth is all re-development in the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b>.
There is no infill and now incremental intensification. It is all carpet bombs, or neighborhood busting bombs—take your pick.
The effect of the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> will be to wipe the Vancouver we know clear off the face of the earth.
<b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> must be opposed in the strongest terms. The planners at city hall writing <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> have lost all sense of professionalism and credibility.
Council must vote down the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b>. Or face the consequences at the polls next October as citizens from all over the city show up to vote.
The carpet bombing came from you probably can guess where. I have no Ukrainian or Russian relatives, nonetheless am affected emotionally by it all, as are so many. WW3?
Cold War 2?... including Communist China and the goings on around the South China Sea and threats to the sovereignty of Taiwan.
The metaphor of the 'bunker busting bomb' comes from my observation of how the first tower to come into a neighborhoods sets the expectation, or so it seems, that more towers will follow. Thus, governments hungry to make deals with developers with deep pockets will approve one tower now in the hopes of attracting more towers later.
Neighborhood folks intent on preserving the form and character of their neighborhood, thus, must over-react to the first towers—even if they are being 'sold' as mid-height—in the certainty that more will follow of ever greater height and bulk.
We have a tower zone in Vancouver—downtown. And provided the neighbors are OK with it, then that's where the towers should go.
Really appreciate the work you're doing as it has been impossible to get data out of the COV. At the last open house in Kits, I tried to a get a better sense of what portion of the 24,000-30,000 units would be affordable (i.e. below market) and was told 5%. You may have mentioned this in a previous post but it's quite shocking to realize this momentous change to our City is for 1,200-1,500 affordable units when the main selling point of the plan is affordability. I realize it will generate a significant number of rental units but at market rates I'm not convinced it will change the "affordability" issues we currently face and without more clarity around CACs and funding from other levels of government, the cost to neighbourhoods is significant. I've also asked for some transparency in terms of actual numbers on how the planned density is spread throughout the neighbourhoods (centres, villages, residential areas) but have yet to receive a response and don't have the expertise or patience to do your level of analysis. The reason it's significant is that the Vancouver Plan suggests density within a 10 min walk of transit hubs and, as you have shown, there is more than enough potential development under current zoning to accommodate this. The idea that towers need to line Broadway and more specifically, be situated on top of transit stations, is absurd. Density should be spread throughout the study area (i.e within a 10 min walk to transit) to encourage safe streets, community/social interactions, a vibrant business community, maintain distinct neighbourhoods and preserve the views that make Vancouver truly unique. On that note... the COV keeps referencing protected views in the plan but they are simply using the antiquated view cones created when this sort of development was not been considered. It would seem logical that those view cones be reevaluated under the proposal and new ones introduced but apparently not. The language the COV continues to use is misleading at best when discussing "protected" views and I would even suggest fraudulent. None of this adds up...
Thanks for your kind words. I suspect the 5% comes from 20% of some development + 0% of a lot more (strata/market rental).I agree with your sentimemts and statements...pretty much all of them. As you can tell, my approach (what I can take on) is to challenge the city's #'s and other details whenever I can. Persevere, ask again and keep a record of what you asked and when, and if you even got a reply. Someday there will be a Public Hearing at which you can speak—it will be important to know what you said and they did not—a kind of bearing witness. Perhaps saner heads will prevail, but I suspect only if there is a wholesale political change in October. Meanwhile, take care.
Just so you know, we're pursuing legal action against the COV for not allowing a meaningful opportunity to participate in the process and flawed public engagement. The hope is to stop irreversible change that may occur prior to the election. Would love to compare notes as this progresses.
Yes, but saying in writing "to the underside of the # view cone is just plain lazy—they should know within a strey or two, certainly within 5 storeys, which is the range in most zones. Is all.
No. What City Hall's shiny brochures fail to mention is the demolition necessary to effect their plan. Thousands of residents will be displaced, with nowhere in the city to go, certainly not at the kinds of rent current in Mt Pleasant, where I live. If nothing else, this rezoning (which it is, no matter what they call it) will inflate land values, and thereby, especially with 'first highest use,' taxes. Landlords will be virtually forced to sell. I foresee a future akin to the destruction of the area in Burnaby near Metrotown - an entire neighbourhood of low-rise, affordable apartments demolished to make way for those towers which can be seen throughout greater Vancouver. So, years of displacement, construction fencing, inconvenience, dust, noise, etc. A horror show. A betrayal of current residents. All in the hope, I assume, of attracting a more upscale class of citizenry, shiny newcomers who work in I.T. (or maybe city-planning), who have no idea of Vancouver's history and share the planning departments disdain for the poor and working class.
Sadly, I agree with all of your sentiments, noticing the Mayor who favoured all the demovictions was resoundingly beaten and the current Mayor requires 20% of ALL new projects and projects requiring rezoning be below market rental—and if the existing affordable rental count is <20%, then the developer must "top up" the #'s to achieve 20% affordable. The development industry is bitching and threatening to cancel projects, good for affordability and land values. So far nothing has actually been stopped—bluffing, perhaps?
Interesting analysis provided in 2007 by the City's own Metro Core Land Use Policy:
"Beyond 25 Years The aim of this study is to ensure job space needed by 2031 will be available. Preliminary analysis shows that the policy directions could provide the job space capacity to allow future jobs to be accommodated on sites that would realistically be available for development during the next 25 years. To achieve this outcome some areas will require protection of these sites for future job growth and development cycles. The job space supply and demand balance will also need to be reviewed in the future to monitor changes in job space demand, and to account for new sites that may add to the supply as the building stock in the Metro Core ages (see above evaluation criteria). The amount of residential capacity available for future population growth in the Metro Core is also an important consideration for the economy. The employees who are integral to economic growth in the Metro Core need diverse, affordable housing, as well as good jobs close to home. A recent analysis of population growth and the demand for housing shows that residential areas in the Metro Core have sufficient capacity within existing zoning to meet the demand for new residential space. As such, the Metro Core Team is confident that sufficient housing opportunities exist without adding additional housing to areas required to meet additional job space requirements."
After all their denials, it would appear the COV does have the ability to analyze current capacity. And yes, things have changed over the last 15 years but Census data suggests not that much. Bit of a smoking gun...
I'll say! (smoking gun, that is!). Thanks for this
We need to drastically upzone the areas surrounding Broadway to create spaces for new businesses and residents. We've tried many things to stabilize rents and housing prices (vacancy tax, foreign buyers tax. etc.) but we haven't tried drastically increasing the housing supply. So let's try it.
Actually, Vancouver and many other BC communities have already built more housing than population increase alone merits. See the UBCM report referenced in CC #37. Vancouver has already spot rezoned a 20-year housing supply, mostly the wrong kind. The Broadway plan is another 20-year supply by itself, also mostly the wrong kind.
i feel sorry for your son
Because he has to put up with me or because of the city he might inherit?
nice fanfic
Fanfic is a new word for me. Meaning?
Fan fiction, I believe...
I recently learned that CoV has a "revenue stream" and recieves approximately 25% for new developments and redevelopments - can someone please forward me the data or paper trail on this?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. For each spot rezoning, the city receives a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) that is negotiable and goes to general revenues—it's supposed to go to "community amenities" such as parks, comm centres, etc., but the fine print lets the city do what they want with it. Each new project (whether rezoned or not) also pays a Development Cost Levy (DCL) which is usually calculated by a formula that varies somewhat in different parts of the city. DCLs are supposed to be used for things like the sewer connections, sidewalks, etc. Staff report to Council periodically on what they've collected, but it tends to be sums rather than individual amounts. Does that help?
The present City Council and Planning Department are clearly representing the development and construction sector of our region and will gut the diversity and vitality of Vancouver and consequently the whole lower mainland. STOP THIS BLATANT LAND GRAB BY THE WEALTHY FOR PROFIT ONLY. We need a COMMUNITY BUILDING COUNCIL and PLANNERS WITH A CONSCIENCE for a LIVABLE CITY! Vote the LOT OUT! Thank you Brian Palmquist
Michael, thanks for your kind if LOUD WORDS (just kidding). We need to get the populace involved in this, big time.
Thanks Brian. I will keep sending them updates but they will still be surprised when they find themselves living in a dark concrete jungle. I am trying to be hopefully for the next election saving something of course that would mean waiting on approving the plan until after the election.
Margeaux, even if the plan is approved before the next election, a new Council can modify or delete it.
Hi Brian I live in Fairview Slopes and have made the best effort I can to give my input to all the changes in the Broadway Plan. I spoke at the council meeting about the Birch St tower and am on the mailing list for the FSGHC so I have read all your articles. The frustration I feel about getting my neighbours to care or notice what is going on never ends. I have managed to get a few people in my building to actively participate in this process but everyone seems resigned to accept what the city is doing. If entire neighbourhoods took the time to say no things would be different and they will all complain when the plans become reality. The city is counting on apathy and we are delivering that sediment well. The city also makes the windows for participation so short and inconvenient even people keeping up can miss opportunities to make their concerns known. I have owned my home and all of this is making its value rise at shocking rates you think that would make me happy but enjoying the beginning of my retirement in a livable functioning neighborhood is more important to me. My complex is right beside the VGH flight path so I actually may end up with some sunshine and a view when this is all done. I would like to tell you a tale of the effects I already see in my complex. It is small complex 16 units in the first 5 years I lived here we had 4 rental units that we we all happy to accommodate we lost one 15 years ago when the market first spiked and in just the last month we have lost two, the last one is expected to go soon. These condos housed nurses, teachers and almost always a family of four, middle class people the city claims to want to attract. Just this loss in my small complex nullifies the few sad family units the Birch St tower claimed to be adding. The profit on sales has been to much for the owners to resist and the people purchasing them are not looking for an investment property like people used too no one has the income to own two homes in the city anymore they buy one and live in it. Unless of course you are ultra rich and buying multiple units in the new towers, those people don’t want to purchase the properties already existing there is less money in that. I do appreciate all the work your are doing trying to warn people at least when everyone complains we can say we tried. Sorry for the long post but unlike so many people I talk to this might actually interest you.
Margeaux, I am hearing more and more stories like yours—seldom dramatic except for those living them. Thanks for speaking up.
Folks from many other parts covered by the Broadway Plan are also speaking up. Each time an informed person digs in a bit, they are aghast at what they are finding. Please keep trying to engage your neighbours in this. Take care.
Start putting in Social Housing and Coops.
Not sure what you mean, Cynthia. The city's presentation of Broadway Plan (BP) land use policies is sufficiently confusing that I have no idea what's possible in the BP, unlike in Burnaby, where requirements are very straightforward (20% or don't bother applying).
Nobody seems interested in funding co-ops. Period. Sad.
Hi Brian, I am impressed your calculations and conclusions. I think they make good sense. However, as a renter, and a senior with an income a bit below median, my preoccupation is with affordable rentals. Where could an adequate number of those come from, in virtually any development scenario? The future I currently see is that my wife and I, and perhaps a third of the current inhabitants of this City, are going to be either living in crowded squalor or forced to move not only out of the City, but out of the Province, sometime in the coming decade.
Dale, I see two parallel streams of activity at the moment:
1. All rezonings paused until there is a complete overhaul of the planning processes; many will ba abandoned;
2. As part of that reset, all renters are protected as they now are in Burnaby—each demovicted renter gets to come back to a new rental apartment at the same rent they left, and with the same 1-2% annual increase that applies to rentals throughout the province;
3. Also like Burnaby, a minimum % of affordable rentals is set for each project. In Burnaby it's 20%, meaning: a developer wants to build 100 homes on a site that currently houses 12 rentals; those 12 receive rental assistance (temporary relocation and $ support) until the replacement building is ready; because 20% is the minimum for affordable rentals, 20% of 100 units = 20 apartments must be made available at the same lower rents as those existing, temporarily displaced renters. I like this scenario because it should build the affordable rental stock over time.
There will be many details to work out around the mechanics of this. But prohjects like this are proceeding in Burnaby, so can happen here—we just need to lay out the rules and stick to them.
Hope that gives you some hope. Take care.
Thank you Brian, you've pointed me in a useful direction. I'm going to do a thorough read of Burnaby's and Vancouver's rental protections policies. My first read does give me a modicum of faint hope:-)
From a higher altitude perspective, I don't see how we'll solve housing shortages and mismatches until we are able to do a really good job of quantifying the housing available for each household income band, and then commit to responsive targets for housing retention and for new builds that meet the needs of those who are here (rather than those who'll come here to replace them.) I'm thinking of an input-output model. A well-designed model would inform rezoning plans, outreach to senior governments, and policy development - year after year, plan after plan. Rolling targets, but you keep feeding the model and it helps you see where the targets need to go. Or at least it will keep reminding us of how far short we're falling.
If City governments don't accurately quantify housing need and then set targets that meet those needs, for every income band, then the current driving-out of below-median-income households from the city will accelerate. It seems likely that without a good quantification of present and future needs by income band we'll end up year after year meeting only the needs of a lucky few lottery winners, at best.
Well, yes, correcting the failure of our almost-fully-commodified housing market to provide homes for people, as opposed to ROI for institutional investors, is a Herculean chore, and most City governments are going to satisfy themselves with doing a modicum of good, and meeting a bit of the need, as opposed to taking on the urgently-needed paradigm shift in housing.
I wonder which civic party would be willing to tackle this :-)
Sorry Brian, I've gone way off the track of your article, which is a very useful one. I do think, though, that driving out modest-income households, or condemning them to hideous housing, undercuts everything and does harm to our whole community.
Cheers,
Dale
It is all a swirling whirlwind of numbers and acronyms, Brian. Let's try to put some sense back into the discussion, as you have done here.
Carpet bombing—great metaphor! I see towers of all sizes landing in the neighborhoods as being <b>neighborhood-busting bombs!</b>
Imagine living in a house and the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> permitting a tower built next door in the house once occupied by your old neighbors. How long could you stand the noise and the racket during the demolition and construction process before you moved out? Or the coming and going from 150 people or more living where just 5 people used to live before?
The census is out for 2021 and it shows Vancouver still growing by 1% per year. It's been doing that since the Skytrain started building back in 1980. At 1% growth the city doubles its population every 72 years. We have a population of 662,248, 8th largest in Canada. For planning purposes we estimate 2.2 people per residential 'unit' (800 SF).
You are reporting 257,000 new residents locating in the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> area alone. That's adding 39% of the current population, or 28 years of growth at 1%. So, more or less the 30 years the Broadway Corridor Plan advertises.
However, these 257,000 residents represents the number of new comers settling in ALL parts of the city, over the next 28 years.
The <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> has the 257,000 residents being shoe-horned into just the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> area. The city measures 44.5 square miles. The <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> covers just 5 square miles, or about 1/10 of the footprint of the city.
So, ALL of the contemplated growth in the city for the next 30 years—using just-released census data—is proposed crammed into an area just 1/10th the size of the city?
To put it another way, the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> is cramming 10-times more population that can be expected to arrive in our city over the next 30 years!
Ten Times!!
Not only that, but the growth is all re-development in the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b>.
There is no infill and now incremental intensification. It is all carpet bombs, or neighborhood busting bombs—take your pick.
The effect of the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> will be to wipe the Vancouver we know clear off the face of the earth.
<b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> must be opposed in the strongest terms. The planners at city hall writing <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b> have lost all sense of professionalism and credibility.
Council must vote down the <b>Broadway Corridor Plan</b>. Or face the consequences at the polls next October as citizens from all over the city show up to vote.
The carpet bombing came from you probably can guess where. I have no Ukrainian or Russian relatives, nonetheless am affected emotionally by it all, as are so many. WW3?
Cold War 2?... including Communist China and the goings on around the South China Sea and threats to the sovereignty of Taiwan.
The metaphor of the 'bunker busting bomb' comes from my observation of how the first tower to come into a neighborhoods sets the expectation, or so it seems, that more towers will follow. Thus, governments hungry to make deals with developers with deep pockets will approve one tower now in the hopes of attracting more towers later.
Neighborhood folks intent on preserving the form and character of their neighborhood, thus, must over-react to the first towers—even if they are being 'sold' as mid-height—in the certainty that more will follow of ever greater height and bulk.
We have a tower zone in Vancouver—downtown. And provided the neighbors are OK with it, then that's where the towers should go.
Sadly, I agree with everything you've said—some of it was in my CC
I share the sentiment... We are in total agreement over the fate of our city, even if we approach it from slightly different lenses!
Really appreciate the work you're doing as it has been impossible to get data out of the COV. At the last open house in Kits, I tried to a get a better sense of what portion of the 24,000-30,000 units would be affordable (i.e. below market) and was told 5%. You may have mentioned this in a previous post but it's quite shocking to realize this momentous change to our City is for 1,200-1,500 affordable units when the main selling point of the plan is affordability. I realize it will generate a significant number of rental units but at market rates I'm not convinced it will change the "affordability" issues we currently face and without more clarity around CACs and funding from other levels of government, the cost to neighbourhoods is significant. I've also asked for some transparency in terms of actual numbers on how the planned density is spread throughout the neighbourhoods (centres, villages, residential areas) but have yet to receive a response and don't have the expertise or patience to do your level of analysis. The reason it's significant is that the Vancouver Plan suggests density within a 10 min walk of transit hubs and, as you have shown, there is more than enough potential development under current zoning to accommodate this. The idea that towers need to line Broadway and more specifically, be situated on top of transit stations, is absurd. Density should be spread throughout the study area (i.e within a 10 min walk to transit) to encourage safe streets, community/social interactions, a vibrant business community, maintain distinct neighbourhoods and preserve the views that make Vancouver truly unique. On that note... the COV keeps referencing protected views in the plan but they are simply using the antiquated view cones created when this sort of development was not been considered. It would seem logical that those view cones be reevaluated under the proposal and new ones introduced but apparently not. The language the COV continues to use is misleading at best when discussing "protected" views and I would even suggest fraudulent. None of this adds up...
Thanks for your kind words. I suspect the 5% comes from 20% of some development + 0% of a lot more (strata/market rental).I agree with your sentimemts and statements...pretty much all of them. As you can tell, my approach (what I can take on) is to challenge the city's #'s and other details whenever I can. Persevere, ask again and keep a record of what you asked and when, and if you even got a reply. Someday there will be a Public Hearing at which you can speak—it will be important to know what you said and they did not—a kind of bearing witness. Perhaps saner heads will prevail, but I suspect only if there is a wholesale political change in October. Meanwhile, take care.
Just so you know, we're pursuing legal action against the COV for not allowing a meaningful opportunity to participate in the process and flawed public engagement. The hope is to stop irreversible change that may occur prior to the election. Would love to compare notes as this progresses.
The only 'viewcone' the plan references is from atop Queen Elizabeth park . . .
Yes, but saying in writing "to the underside of the # view cone is just plain lazy—they should know within a strey or two, certainly within 5 storeys, which is the range in most zones. Is all.
No. What City Hall's shiny brochures fail to mention is the demolition necessary to effect their plan. Thousands of residents will be displaced, with nowhere in the city to go, certainly not at the kinds of rent current in Mt Pleasant, where I live. If nothing else, this rezoning (which it is, no matter what they call it) will inflate land values, and thereby, especially with 'first highest use,' taxes. Landlords will be virtually forced to sell. I foresee a future akin to the destruction of the area in Burnaby near Metrotown - an entire neighbourhood of low-rise, affordable apartments demolished to make way for those towers which can be seen throughout greater Vancouver. So, years of displacement, construction fencing, inconvenience, dust, noise, etc. A horror show. A betrayal of current residents. All in the hope, I assume, of attracting a more upscale class of citizenry, shiny newcomers who work in I.T. (or maybe city-planning), who have no idea of Vancouver's history and share the planning departments disdain for the poor and working class.
Sadly, I agree with all of your sentiments, noticing the Mayor who favoured all the demovictions was resoundingly beaten and the current Mayor requires 20% of ALL new projects and projects requiring rezoning be below market rental—and if the existing affordable rental count is <20%, then the developer must "top up" the #'s to achieve 20% affordable. The development industry is bitching and threatening to cancel projects, good for affordability and land values. So far nothing has actually been stopped—bluffing, perhaps?
Take care