Feint by Numbers: 5455

City Conversation #32: The proposed spot rezoning at 5455 Balsam illustrates how city staff are using technology & COVID to betray established Vancouver residents and their neighbourhoods

February 27, 2022—Street addresses are just about the only numerical data that Vancouver city staff will release—even City Councillors remain unable to obtain aggregate data that place individual spot rezonings such as 5455 in their wider neighbourhood and city contexts. The tale (so far) of 5455 Balsam is one of city hall doublespeak and the willingness of city staff to trade off just about everything for high-priced rental accommodation, as 5455 promises to be. This is just one of more than 350 proposed or already approved spot rezonings introduced since the current City Council was elected in 2018. 

This illustration from the 5455 Balsam city website shows the existing tower and neighbouring townhouses in shades of grey

“Isn’t that across the lane from the townhouse we looked at a few years back?” asked my wife. She generally avoids talking with me about city planning matters, knowing my quixotic-like passion for the continuing outrages from City Hall. But this was different—I was away on business when she had looked at a townhouse for sale in the Larchwood development, deciding at the time it was one of the few properties and locations she had seen that might accommodate our future downsizing. We did not proceed, but it remained in our habitation consciousness. It’s one of the low grey blocks visible between the two high-rises in the illustration above—a major disservice to Larchwood’s charm and character. “So what’s going on?”

“Jeanette, one of the owners at Larchwood, has contacted me, desperate for insight about how this proposed high-rise has suddenly appeared literally on the horizon. As with most of the 350+ spot rezonings started since 2018 under the current City Council, her efforts to engage in rational discussion with city staff have been met with bureaucratic doublespeak.”

“That seems harsh,” she responded. “What do you mean by doublespeak?”

“Jeannette and her neighbours asked the planners through their project website: ‘Does the secure rental policy override the Arbutus Ridge—Kerrisdale development plan passed by City Council in 2005?’ The answer is such a textbook example of gobbledygook that I will quote it directly:”

  “The Rezoning Policy within the Arbutus Ridge/Kerrisdale/Shaughnessy (ARKS) Community Vision provides direction for consideration of rezoning applications for certain types of projects where Council has approved other city-wide policies, new Vision Directions, or as normal practice. These certain types of projects include Social or Affordable Housing Projects which include projects with a housing agreement, such as would be required for secured rental developments. Council’s approved city-wide Secured Rental Policy allows for consideration of rezoning applications for secured rental developments in certain zones throughout the city, including sites zoned RM-3 such as this site. These two Council-approved policies are compatible and allow for consideration of this rezoning application.

       We hope this information is useful to you.”

“I especially like the last sentence,” I continued. “I almost got a headache trying to make sense of the city’s response, as did Jeanette. She said to me, ‘We have no idea what this means.  This is not Social or Affordable Housing (at least not in the proposal). Would that come in the development phase?”

My wife interjected, “I also can’t make any sense of the city’s response. Can you?”

“I think so,” I continued. “In simpler terms, it’s saying that if a developer proposes a spot rezoning that includes secured rental apartments, then it will be considered on sites like this, which were developed throughout Kerrisdale, largely in the 60s.”

“I’ll bite,” said my wife, “what’s secured rental housing as applied here?”

“The original policy was introduced in 2012, amended by the current Council in 2022. This particular spot rezoning appears to be based on one specific eligibility criterion: ‘Consider redevelopment of sites where existing rental units do not current[ly] exist and infill development where appropriate on sites where existing tenants are not displaced Adhere to existing height limits and generally to guidelines.’  This property already has a rental tower on it, so I guess city staff think this second tower, which more than doubles the site’s density, somehow constitutes infill, kinda like a laneway home on steroids!”

I continued. “It gets worse. “The secured rental policy expects 20% of new apartments to be rented at below market rates.” She interrupted, “That seems okay.”

“Let me finish painting the picture,” I replied. “That 20% requirement only applies to projects up to six storeys—there is no below market requirement for higher buildings—I have no idea what the basis for that is, but it means there is zero requirement for below market apartments in this proposed tower. And the city’s own website says nothing about below market rent, so it appears to be off the table. So Jeanette’s comment, ‘This is not Social or Affordable Housing (at least not in the proposal)’ sadly appears to be correct.”

“It’s not all bad, though,” I continued. “The Secured Rental Policy requires that 35% of apartments be two-bedroom or larger…and this proposal makes that percentage, with one to spare!”

“So the price of this rezoning is to provide 53 two-bedroom apartments rented at market rates, which are what?” she asked.

“Well, according to CMHC, as of October 2021 the average 2-bedroom monthly rent in Kerrisdale was just below $1,700. As these will be new apartments, and many Kerrisdale apartments are still in older low-rise buildings, I expect they will all rent for well north of $2,000 per month.”

“I forgot to mention! That same Secured Rental Policy that requires 35% two-bed apartments allows the building’s 57 studios to be as small as 320 square feet!” She gave me that ‘I don’t do area calculations’ look. “That’s basically a 12 foot wide hotel room with a kitchenette squeezed in at one end or along one wall. Studios rent for an average $1,150+ in Kerrisdale—I can’t determine whether these will rent for more because newer, or less because tiny.”

She looked over my shoulder at this article’s headline. “What do you mean when you say this project illustrates how city staff are using technology and COVID to betray established Vancouver residents and their neighbourhoods—and a possible blueprint for fighting back.”

“I almost forgot about that!” I responded. “Jeanette told me some of the background to this proposal: ‘My first comment to the application was regarding why no neighbours knew about it.  I found out by accident. There was no signage by the first week in January even though the application was done in November. A sign went up the next week, January 17, indicating a "virtual" open house January 31 - February 20th.  We got postcards in the mail on February 2nd. It should be noted that there is a large percentage of seniors in this neighbourhood with limited access to the internet.  Some gave up, some asked their neighbours to respond for them.  But there was no thought of that being a problem.  So what was the rush, why could they not wait until [COVID] restrictions were lifted to allow in person meetings?’ Like Jeanette, I can’t understand what the rush is—as I mentioned in another recent post, there seems to be an unseemly rush to get neighbourhood-busting projects approved. Perhaps the timing of the next election has something to do with that.” I smiled weakly.

“As far as a blueprint for fighting back, here and elsewhere in the city: organize your neighbourhood, ideally with someone on each block who is the resource and sounding board for that block—a listserv like Dunbar’s seems to work well for a neighbourhood that doesn’t have universal access to social media or advanced computer skills.” 

“This current City Council, city management and staff have no patience for neighbourhoods. That needs to change before there are no neighbourhoods left!”

Calls to Action

The proposed rezoning at 5455 Balsam is currently scheduled to go to the city’s Urban Design Panel on March 2, 2022. There is no schedule published for when it goes to City Council for referral to a public hearing. It’s not too late to comment on the project’s city website but that ability may be removed at any moment—you can tell the Mayor and Councillors your views directly by email. There will also be opportunities to speak at the Public Hearing if the project gets that far, as most spot rezonings do with this Council—in-person presentations have more impact than email or by phone, so please consider an in-person appearance.

Vancouver’s civic election is in late October of this year. Lots of damage in addition to 5455 can be done by the current Council, city management and staff before that date—and it will continue, and worsen, unless TEAM for a Livable Vancouver elects a majority (6 of 10) City Councillors—less than 6 and not much will change. If you are concerned that what you’ve just read is an example of what’s wrong with our city, and want to bring back its livability, join TEAM and work with us to restore Vancouver as a place we can all afford to call home.

Last Word on the Numbers

Vancouver City Hall refuses to release data about many aspects of housing, so each time I become aware of a new spot rezoning project that affects Vancouver’s future housing supply (359 so far since the last civic election, including 5455 Balsam), I log the details, then update this snapshot, which is current as of the date of publication:

So as of today, in a city that has grown about 1% annually (7,000 new residents per year) over the past 35 years, Vancouver has at least an 18.5 year supply of housing, totalling 59,000+ homes, that’s been approved or likely to be approved, PLUS an additional 18.2 year supply (58,000+) that’s been identified in plans like the Jericho Lands, Senakw’, etc. I’m having a hard time seeing affordability as a supply problem. Just sayin.’

And a bit of humour because we all need it: this post is brought to you by the numbers 5455, 32, $1,700 and 35%. Except for the address and the City Conversation #, none of the other numbers is very encouraging.

---

Today’s question: Do you think city staff should consider as ‘infill’ a 14-storey tower that more than doubles the number of apartments on a site?

I read and respond to all comments made below. If you enjoyed this post, consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at

 Brian Palmquist is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired for the moment, still teaching and writing, 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.” He is also a member of TEAM for a livable Vancouver, a new political party dedicated to restoring a livable Vancouver starting with the 2022 civic election. City Conversations are generally congruent with TEAM policy, so if you like the ideas that I’m writing about, please consider joining TEAM.