Is it true that the author of this blog cares about creating affordable housing for more residents to live in Vancouver?
Can we trust that the author would support alternative approaches to densify and accommodate the massive population increases that are projected, rather than just defend the status quo?
For the City:
Is it true that developing multiplexes on 33 foot lots is not financially feasible?
Can we trust that the city will be able to create new missing middle housing when the majority of lots impacted by this proposal cannot be developed except at a loss?
To your questions to me, Yes, I care a great deal about creating affordable housing for residents of Vancouver—I speny much of my career doing just that. Times have changed but there are many ways to tackle this problem—just not the ones on the table.
I am also not just defending the status quo. I could develop my own home into 4 units (it is currently 2), but the combination of fees, disincentives for my character home, etc., make it financially nonviable, an important issue at my age.
Appreciate that you have taken a close look at the proposal. I am a big fan of the concept because I like that it could preserve the fine grain of the streets and I think resident developers have more desire to create high quality developments. I agree this proposal could be improved but I think I support it as a step in the right direction.
Great article. The only thing I would suggest is a follow up to the real decline in the urban forest by replacing established trees with, at best, notional trees. Didn’t UBC publish some conclusion that there was a relationship between children’s mental health and amount “green” in a neighbourhood using Vancouver data? I would hope the City of Vancouver would “follow the science.”
Richard, thanks for reading. In my opinion the city "follows the science" when it suits them, while using the science as a smokescreen. The multiplex proposal foresees destruction of most trees on most multiplexed lots, both street trees and private, and replacement (not 1 for 1) with new baby trees. Nobody amongst staff will admit the multiplex makes a mockery of the greenest city action plan.
No mention of proper TAT ( Transit and Active Transportation) Network.
Hub cycling( 50 paid staff + volunteers) does not want to criticize the City and/or TransLink as they recieve some funding from them. Cycling in Vancouver is way behind other cities.
We need a proper TAT network which no one is talking about.
The City assume TransLink knows how to improve mode share. However no change in the last 30 or 40 yrs.
The upcoming Travel Survey for MVRD & FVRD will provide us with more bad news about TAT.
We will never achieve CleanBC 2030 targets.
Overall 80+% of travel trips are by cars.( In most of Europe it is 20 to 30%).
Yes certain areas in MVRD have higher mode share, but we need to look at overall statistics which are very bad compare to Montreal, Toronto.
With the number of residents on the 60000 multiplex lots increasing from an average of 2.2 residents per unit to 5 or 6 or 7 or 8
we need way more TAT.
The City has no control on TransLink( 50% of Transit riders are in Vancouver/UBC).
Vancouver Politicians do not understand TAT and neither are the city staff.
Vancouver is the most dense city in Canada/US after NYC, but the level of TAT is way way behind NYC and many other less dense cities.
Truth is, this plan may not house many or any more people. If a survey was done, you would be surprised at how many people now live in many of these "single family" houses. Eg., one of my rental properties has 10 adults and 2 children in the house, infill house, and basement suite. I doubt if there would be more in the proposed 6-plex. Rents of course would be 2-3 times the existing rents. So much for affordability. And let's not talk about how totally ungreen the whole plan is.
Another example. 11 Irish workers on temp working visas live a couple of doors away. All in one large "single family" rented house. All fit into the neighbourhood. All enjoy a green living environment and outdoor area. True co-op. Divide their rent by 11 and that is very affordable rent.
For the author:
Is it true that the author of this blog cares about creating affordable housing for more residents to live in Vancouver?
Can we trust that the author would support alternative approaches to densify and accommodate the massive population increases that are projected, rather than just defend the status quo?
For the City:
Is it true that developing multiplexes on 33 foot lots is not financially feasible?
Can we trust that the city will be able to create new missing middle housing when the majority of lots impacted by this proposal cannot be developed except at a loss?
Shamai, great comments.
To your questions to me, Yes, I care a great deal about creating affordable housing for residents of Vancouver—I speny much of my career doing just that. Times have changed but there are many ways to tackle this problem—just not the ones on the table.
I am also not just defending the status quo. I could develop my own home into 4 units (it is currently 2), but the combination of fees, disincentives for my character home, etc., make it financially nonviable, an important issue at my age.
Thanks for reading thoughtfully.
Appreciate that you have taken a close look at the proposal. I am a big fan of the concept because I like that it could preserve the fine grain of the streets and I think resident developers have more desire to create high quality developments. I agree this proposal could be improved but I think I support it as a step in the right direction.
Great article. The only thing I would suggest is a follow up to the real decline in the urban forest by replacing established trees with, at best, notional trees. Didn’t UBC publish some conclusion that there was a relationship between children’s mental health and amount “green” in a neighbourhood using Vancouver data? I would hope the City of Vancouver would “follow the science.”
Richard, thanks for reading. In my opinion the city "follows the science" when it suits them, while using the science as a smokescreen. The multiplex proposal foresees destruction of most trees on most multiplexed lots, both street trees and private, and replacement (not 1 for 1) with new baby trees. Nobody amongst staff will admit the multiplex makes a mockery of the greenest city action plan.
No mention of proper TAT ( Transit and Active Transportation) Network.
Hub cycling( 50 paid staff + volunteers) does not want to criticize the City and/or TransLink as they recieve some funding from them. Cycling in Vancouver is way behind other cities.
We need a proper TAT network which no one is talking about.
The City assume TransLink knows how to improve mode share. However no change in the last 30 or 40 yrs.
The upcoming Travel Survey for MVRD & FVRD will provide us with more bad news about TAT.
We will never achieve CleanBC 2030 targets.
Overall 80+% of travel trips are by cars.( In most of Europe it is 20 to 30%).
Yes certain areas in MVRD have higher mode share, but we need to look at overall statistics which are very bad compare to Montreal, Toronto.
With the number of residents on the 60000 multiplex lots increasing from an average of 2.2 residents per unit to 5 or 6 or 7 or 8
we need way more TAT.
The City has no control on TransLink( 50% of Transit riders are in Vancouver/UBC).
Vancouver Politicians do not understand TAT and neither are the city staff.
Vancouver is the most dense city in Canada/US after NYC, but the level of TAT is way way behind NYC and many other less dense cities.
Truth is, this plan may not house many or any more people. If a survey was done, you would be surprised at how many people now live in many of these "single family" houses. Eg., one of my rental properties has 10 adults and 2 children in the house, infill house, and basement suite. I doubt if there would be more in the proposed 6-plex. Rents of course would be 2-3 times the existing rents. So much for affordability. And let's not talk about how totally ungreen the whole plan is.
Your key phrase is "If a survey was done." I believe city staff have no interest in finding out who lives in existing housing in the city.
Another example. 11 Irish workers on temp working visas live a couple of doors away. All in one large "single family" rented house. All fit into the neighbourhood. All enjoy a green living environment and outdoor area. True co-op. Divide their rent by 11 and that is very affordable rent.