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!”
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
Start putting in Social Housing and Coops.
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.
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.
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
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?
nice fanfic
i feel sorry for your son
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.
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...