Some ABCs for ABC
City Conversation #90: Some Affordable Building Concepts for ABC Vancouver to consider
November 10th 2022—ABC Vancouver has much on its plate as it moves to governance. I thought a summary of some Affordable Building Concepts (ABCs) might help.
Low-rise versus High-rise sustainability—PowerPoint slide from Fairview/South Granville Action Committee (FSGAC)
I don’t know about you, but I’m having trouble deciding what the agenda is for the newly-elected Vancouver City Council with an ABC Vancouver party Mayor and Council majority. Their 94 promises (since deleted from their website) are organized such that several touch on my areas of interest—affordable design and construction, planning and urban design.
For my own sanity and monitoring purposes, I’m trying to unpack the platform around those areas of interest, starting with the one that dominated the election, affordability. There are many components of affordability that are outside my areas of expertise—they are conveniently combined as urban land economics.
What I do have some knowledge and experience of are affordability products—buildings small and large and the zoning and building codes that govern them. Together, I call these affordable building concepts. Hereafter, a few:
Low-rise is always Cheaper to Build than High-rise
I am no cost expert, so I referred to folks who are—Altus Group, an international real estate service company with a major presence throughout Canada, including Vancouver. They publish the annual Canadian Cost Guide—the 2022 guide’s residential portion includes this key chart:
Vancouver Residential 2022 Costs per square foot—from Altus Group 2022 Canadian Cost Guide, Pages 4 & 11
Two things are evident from this chart:
1. The higher you go, whether in wood, steel or concrete, the higher the price to build per square foot. This is logical because: the supporting structure needs to be more robust the higher you go; it takes more energy and time to lift materials and workers ever higher in the air; and materials need to be more robust when they are exposed to more extreme weather conditions higher above ground; to name a few.
2. The costs relative to height escalate whether in wood, still or concrete, BUT the highest wood frame costs are still less than the lowest hybrid/ steel/ concrete structures. Simplistically, the workers and tools needed to build in wood frame are more plentiful and, frankly, cheaper to hire than high-rise workers—don’t get me started on how elevator installers drive schedules to their preferences and always charge a premium!
It appears there is still insufficient project data for mass timber buildings, which are those more than six storeys built mostly from wood. Anecdotal information suggests mass timber’s “sweet spot” is above six storeys—that’s where it becomes competitive, often cheaper than noncombustible construction. Perhaps Altus’s 2023 guide will offer more data.
Low-rise is always Cheaper to Operate than High-rise
Let’s look at the words in the illustration at the top of this post:
Low-rises are 28% more energy efficient than high-rises (City-sponsored report)
High-rises use 4x more energy than low-rises (BC Hydro)
High-rise heating and energy use increased over 30 yrs in BC despite energy efficiency improvements (RDH, Vancouver)
The reports underlying these bullet points are a bit dated (c2015)—there have been improvements in high-rise energy performance as compared to the previous 30 years. BUT there have also been significant improvements in wood frame construction. I suspect the spread has not narrowed. So rent and condo fees will always be higher in high-rise buildings, for the same size home. Period.
Low-rise is Happier to Live in than High-rise
A 2019 report set out to identify whether high-rise living was inherently better or worse than low-rise—earlier studies by others suggested lower was better, so an update was indicated.
The paper is lengthy, so is hyperlinked here. Just a couple of its many findings:
From the fifth floor and upwards residents become disconnected with what is going on in the world around them as they cannot see what is happening on the ground (p.4);
Studies … clearly show an exacerbation of mental health problems in high-rise buildings in comparison to low-rise or detached houses. Psychological problems (58%) and social isolation (35%) featured prominently in the literature as areas of difficulty for apartment dwellers, and contributing to this are socio-economic factors and building design. Chile et al. [40] found consistent experience and expression of social isolation across all age groups (p. 5);
Full disclosure—the breadth of the study includes some postwar high-rise projects, i.e., urban renewal, which pleased nobody. My quotes above are not from those projects, although they might apply as the Vancouver and provincial government continue to favour a stack ‘em high-rise congregate form for social housing.
Low-rise is Healthier to Live in than High-rise
A 2016 Toronto study about the relative survivability of folks suffering cardiac events in high-rises found, not surprisingly, that In an analysis by floor, survival was 0.9% above floor 16 (i.e., below the 1% threshold for futility), and there were no survivors above the 25th floor.
Low-rise is better for the Environment than High-rise
A 2015 study of 2,000 high-rise homes found that high-rise buildings exhibit greater energy demand and usage:
The low-rise buildings are boxed in red, except for the suburban house at the far right—lower bars are better
Another way to measure energy use is what’s called the Energy Use Intensity of a building. Here again, low-rise performs better:
The low-rise buildings are boxed in red, except for the suburban house at the far right—lower bars are better
This is just a smattering of scientific studies—you get the drift.
Wood is always Cheaper to Build than Steel or Concrete
Vancouver Residential 2022 Costs per square foot—from Altus Group 2022 Canadian Cost Guide, Pages 4 & 11
ABC’s since-deleted election platform included this encouraging promise:
“An ABC Majority will enable greater prioritization of building with wood, including increasing the allowed heights of mass timber buildings, to better achieve the City’s climate and affordability objectives.”
Given that wood construction is cheaper than other forms, this is encouraging.
Simpler is cheaper
Logic suggests that for any building height and configuration, simpler is cheaper—standard floor plans; fewer amenities, etc.
In favour of ABC’s platform, they included this promise about laneway homes:
“An ABC Majority will pre-approve five standard laneway home designs to speed up laneway home construction.”
There is a speed-of-processing component to this pledge (it’s easier to approve a standard design), but the concept is worthwhile.
What may be more problematic is simplicity as exemplified by this recent rezoning application at 2105 Main Street:
24 storeys, mass timber, 0 balconies
This proposed 210-unit rental building has no balconies—cause for worry, in my opinion—yours may differ.
What about the land costs?
In my recent City Conversation #85 entitled Missing Middle Housing Missing no More, I highlighted recent work by retired architect Bill McCreery, showing how a six storey wood-frame building could achieve the same density as a high-rise—not 24, or 40 or more storeys, but 12 or 14. And two-thirds of the apartments are two and three bedroom.
Much has been written by brighter folks than I about the futility of trying to build 20+ storey high-rise and expecting it to be affordable. A key finding by UBC Professor Patrick Condon (and others): putting more homes on a piece of dirt does not make them more affordable—it just raises the price of the dirt.
Today’s question: What affordable building concepts have I missed?
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.” and working the first 88 City Conversations into a book about how we’ve come to where we are.
Well, I will quote my daughter who lives in London. "Wow, Vancouver rents and prices are so cheap, must be nice". Point made - the drive to build more, house more, become world class, is never going to decrease property values and with a good economy, mild weather, sea and mountain location added in, the City will be talking "affordability" into eternity. There are only 2 types of housing, market and subsidized. Affordable is a variable, different for each person. Trying to manipulate the market with policy is a fool's game. Better to go directly to subsidized if you want to house those that cannot compete in the market.