"I think this is the moment where YIMBYs and other “Build it and they will come” apologists say, “There won’t be any kids in those mid and high-rises.".
You got this exactly backwards. Every NIMBY in Vancouver (including you) is always claiming that families with children cannot live in high rises and use that as a reason to oppose them. It is YIMBYs that point out that high density apartments are actually the one of the most common places for families with kids to live.
Avery, let's not confuse the issues, please. I am not a NIMBY and have never claimed kids can't live in high-rises. It's VSB that discounts kids in high-rises, otherwise they wouldn't have objected so strenuously to building Elsie Roy in False Creek North, as I mentioned in my post. Perhaps they wouldn't be projecting a decline of 5,000 students in the next 10 years when the province says +5,000 and my data says +14,000, if they didn't (apparently) believe kids can't live in high-rise.
There are lots of reasons why lower is better for most folks, also lots of studies and data showing that higher is not cheaper for anyone. I am happy for the data to speak for itself, but let's not confuse the issue by attempting to cancel me as a NIMBY, when I'm not. Instead ask the Broadway Plan planners why they are only projecting 1.6 persons per BP home, against a historic average of 2.1; or ask the VSB why they estimate the number of school age kids in the BP area will be half what it's historically been throughout the city.
The VSB issue is closing and disposing of schools when they should be planning for more—that's it.
Thanks so much for this article. The overarching point - that the VSB is considering selling property while city staff and leaders project unprecedented population growth in the coming years - is in itself remarkable. In the higher resolution you offer, it's even more concerning. If I understand correctly, it seems that the city is actively planning for some neighborhoods to get emptier while others are set to experience massive densification.
I want to remark further on just one sentence of this article, because it hits very close to home for me. You write: "VSB staff have stated in their analyses that only 3% of the folks in the Broadway Plan will be school age, barely half of our history—no explanation but an interesting indicator". I can't help but wonder if this is indeed intentional - i.e. if the plan really is for less kids in the Broadway Plan areas (and/or in the city generally) than we have had historically.
The majority of the new rental suites will be (expensive) one bedroom apartments and studios. Our new and previous mayor have been wanting to add a "night mayor" to city staff, to help extend city night life through the morning hours. Alcohol has been allowed in our parks and beaches, and drugs legalized. The province has just declared "reproductive health" a right by offering women free prescription contraception. Meanwhile, fertility care is entirely privatized in BC and prohibitively expensive. I can personally attest to the fact that fertility clinics in Vancouver - open 7 days a week, 364 days a year - are jammed packed, every single day, with women and couples who were entirely uninformed about reproductive health for most of their lives and/or who face any number of medical obstacles to conceive, the most common being advancing age of one or both of the intended parents. Many run out of money and/or time before they can in fact start or extend their families as they would like to. The personal stories are devastating. In our national newspapers, we've been seeing regular media reports about Canada's abysmal birthrate as if there were nothing that could be done to improve it (except ever-higher levels of immigration). In my own once *very* family-friendly micro-neighborhood (~ Arbutis & Broadway), the city has planned a subway station and a supportive housing building across from the toddler park, women's shelter, and elementary school.
In short (and I'm sorry to have written so much), I'm really worried about this. Because I'm in the stage of life where I'm starting and hoping to start a family of my own, I read this news about the selling off of VSB property in the context of what feels (to me) like an incredible resignation across all levels of our leadership about the future of Canadian families. I may be overthinking this but wanted to share in any case!!
Wow! Thanks so much for your heartfelt feelings about all this. As the father of two amazing adopted (now adult) children I can attest to the lack of information and support for that journey as well as its reproductive precursors.
As for the rest of your concerns, I share them, which is why I continue with City Conversations. Thanks for reading and sharing.
Just wondering if the First Nations development currently starting at the Burrard Bridge southend is factored into your Kits numbers. The approximate 10,000 new residents there will equal the 10,000 existing residents in the northeast quadrant of Kits. The nearby elementary school is being rebuilt but not expanded, I understand. How does that jig?
Richard, thanks for reading. Yes, Senakw' is included with my Kits numbers, as well as its share of the Broadway Plan, a bit of Vancouver Plan and existing spot rezonings. That's why I show Kits being short 1600+ student spaces.
When talking to Parents at the now notorious St Augustine School on Arbutus and 7th, I found that (surprise surprise) they weren't pearl rattling Catholics, but many had been unable to find places at local Public Schools.
Now you've mentioned that just as no new green spaces are planned for the New Density towers, so too are no new school places included, nor GPs.
Just what is Vancouver offering to new immigrants? An overpriced box, and a standing room only sky train?
Laura, thanks for your thoughts. I've not done the research, but I suspect private schools have long been an overflow valve for the public school system. Many are quite affordable (unless you are already just scraping by). Sad if the public system relies on private schools. Having said that, Kits will be 1,600+ students short when planned development kicks in—private schools will not even come close to covering that.
School Board Lands should not be sold. Boards and their employees have been notorious at guessing wrongly about where children will be educated. Any lands sold should be used for social housing IMO.
Thanks for all that hard work, Brian. Your numbers are amazing! Amazing too that the VSB is planning to sell a number of sites without telling the public how many and which they are. This is public property. Why shouldn’t we know? Maybe to avoid the public’s justifiable outrage? Selling school property while increasing the population is nuts!
Carol, thanks for your kind words. To be clear, selling lands is one of a number of options being considered-but that shouldn’t even be on the table for discussion, in my opinion. As VSB has redacted most of its Land Strategy Report we can only speculate.
"I think this is the moment where YIMBYs and other “Build it and they will come” apologists say, “There won’t be any kids in those mid and high-rises.".
You got this exactly backwards. Every NIMBY in Vancouver (including you) is always claiming that families with children cannot live in high rises and use that as a reason to oppose them. It is YIMBYs that point out that high density apartments are actually the one of the most common places for families with kids to live.
Avery, let's not confuse the issues, please. I am not a NIMBY and have never claimed kids can't live in high-rises. It's VSB that discounts kids in high-rises, otherwise they wouldn't have objected so strenuously to building Elsie Roy in False Creek North, as I mentioned in my post. Perhaps they wouldn't be projecting a decline of 5,000 students in the next 10 years when the province says +5,000 and my data says +14,000, if they didn't (apparently) believe kids can't live in high-rise.
There are lots of reasons why lower is better for most folks, also lots of studies and data showing that higher is not cheaper for anyone. I am happy for the data to speak for itself, but let's not confuse the issue by attempting to cancel me as a NIMBY, when I'm not. Instead ask the Broadway Plan planners why they are only projecting 1.6 persons per BP home, against a historic average of 2.1; or ask the VSB why they estimate the number of school age kids in the BP area will be half what it's historically been throughout the city.
The VSB issue is closing and disposing of schools when they should be planning for more—that's it.
Thanks for reading.
Great work as always, Brian. I guess “build it and they will come” doesn’t apply to schools in Vancouver.
Sadly you may be right. Stay tuned for what happens tomorrow evening. And thanks for reading
Thanks so much for this article. The overarching point - that the VSB is considering selling property while city staff and leaders project unprecedented population growth in the coming years - is in itself remarkable. In the higher resolution you offer, it's even more concerning. If I understand correctly, it seems that the city is actively planning for some neighborhoods to get emptier while others are set to experience massive densification.
I want to remark further on just one sentence of this article, because it hits very close to home for me. You write: "VSB staff have stated in their analyses that only 3% of the folks in the Broadway Plan will be school age, barely half of our history—no explanation but an interesting indicator". I can't help but wonder if this is indeed intentional - i.e. if the plan really is for less kids in the Broadway Plan areas (and/or in the city generally) than we have had historically.
The majority of the new rental suites will be (expensive) one bedroom apartments and studios. Our new and previous mayor have been wanting to add a "night mayor" to city staff, to help extend city night life through the morning hours. Alcohol has been allowed in our parks and beaches, and drugs legalized. The province has just declared "reproductive health" a right by offering women free prescription contraception. Meanwhile, fertility care is entirely privatized in BC and prohibitively expensive. I can personally attest to the fact that fertility clinics in Vancouver - open 7 days a week, 364 days a year - are jammed packed, every single day, with women and couples who were entirely uninformed about reproductive health for most of their lives and/or who face any number of medical obstacles to conceive, the most common being advancing age of one or both of the intended parents. Many run out of money and/or time before they can in fact start or extend their families as they would like to. The personal stories are devastating. In our national newspapers, we've been seeing regular media reports about Canada's abysmal birthrate as if there were nothing that could be done to improve it (except ever-higher levels of immigration). In my own once *very* family-friendly micro-neighborhood (~ Arbutis & Broadway), the city has planned a subway station and a supportive housing building across from the toddler park, women's shelter, and elementary school.
In short (and I'm sorry to have written so much), I'm really worried about this. Because I'm in the stage of life where I'm starting and hoping to start a family of my own, I read this news about the selling off of VSB property in the context of what feels (to me) like an incredible resignation across all levels of our leadership about the future of Canadian families. I may be overthinking this but wanted to share in any case!!
Wow! Thanks so much for your heartfelt feelings about all this. As the father of two amazing adopted (now adult) children I can attest to the lack of information and support for that journey as well as its reproductive precursors.
As for the rest of your concerns, I share them, which is why I continue with City Conversations. Thanks for reading and sharing.
Hi Brian
Just wondering if the First Nations development currently starting at the Burrard Bridge southend is factored into your Kits numbers. The approximate 10,000 new residents there will equal the 10,000 existing residents in the northeast quadrant of Kits. The nearby elementary school is being rebuilt but not expanded, I understand. How does that jig?
Richard
Richard, thanks for reading. Yes, Senakw' is included with my Kits numbers, as well as its share of the Broadway Plan, a bit of Vancouver Plan and existing spot rezonings. That's why I show Kits being short 1600+ student spaces.
When talking to Parents at the now notorious St Augustine School on Arbutus and 7th, I found that (surprise surprise) they weren't pearl rattling Catholics, but many had been unable to find places at local Public Schools.
Now you've mentioned that just as no new green spaces are planned for the New Density towers, so too are no new school places included, nor GPs.
Just what is Vancouver offering to new immigrants? An overpriced box, and a standing room only sky train?
Laura, thanks for your thoughts. I've not done the research, but I suspect private schools have long been an overflow valve for the public school system. Many are quite affordable (unless you are already just scraping by). Sad if the public system relies on private schools. Having said that, Kits will be 1,600+ students short when planned development kicks in—private schools will not even come close to covering that.
School Board Lands should not be sold. Boards and their employees have been notorious at guessing wrongly about where children will be educated. Any lands sold should be used for social housing IMO.
I agree with your comments, but would rather no land was sold—we will need it within the next generation. Cheers.
Thanks for all that hard work, Brian. Your numbers are amazing! Amazing too that the VSB is planning to sell a number of sites without telling the public how many and which they are. This is public property. Why shouldn’t we know? Maybe to avoid the public’s justifiable outrage? Selling school property while increasing the population is nuts!
Carol, thanks for your kind words. To be clear, selling lands is one of a number of options being considered-but that shouldn’t even be on the table for discussion, in my opinion. As VSB has redacted most of its Land Strategy Report we can only speculate.