(A brief presentation to Vancouver City Council on 25 May 2021)
I have resided in Vancouver for 44 years, and I oppose Motion B2.
I have some experience of these matters. I am a registered Architect, was the Managing Architect for the Concord Pacific Place development and the first two phases of Coal Harbour. I have personally designed more than 1,000 social housing and co-op housing units and consulted on many thousands more. Perhaps most pertinent to this discussion, I served from 1998 through the year 2000 on the city of Vancouver’s Community and Industry Advisory Panel for Rezoning, Permitting and Inspection. This panel of community and industry representatives, convened at council’s direction, met for a half-day every two weeks, focused on improving city hall’s development processes. I resigned after 18 months because not a single carefully considered recommendation of the Panel was accepted by city staff. After a year and a half, I sadly concluded I was on a fool’s errand. Other representatives also resigned and nothing came of the initiative.
Nothing much has improved in the subsequent 21 year; much has worsened; most has stayed as it was a generation ago.
And yet, in response to the continuing inability of city hall to manage its own processes, we now have Motion B2. This motion seeks to muzzle the citizens of Vancouver rather than manage city staff. It seeks a workaround to city-imposed development strait jackets for a favoured few. It proposes to impose up to four times the currently zoned density anywhere in the city’s residential and mixed commercial and residential zones in the interests of an emergency largely created by city staff and management’s inability to effectively manage its involvement in design and construction.
I recently published an article analyzing the existing zoning capacity of the city’s more than 90 Commercial “C” zones, which form part of this motion’s scope. My analysis is based on a freely available private sector 3D visual model that is not the city’s because they don’t maintain one or make one available. Needs must.
As a general conclusion, I determined by analyzing these more than 90 “C” zones that the unused existing, 4 storey maximum density just across the city’s “C” zones could accommodate 11,000 new housing units in addition to those already existing in the “C” zones without breaking a sweat. To be clear, these 11,000 units are in addition to all of the currently planned megaprojects such as Oakridge, the Jericho and Heather Lands, Senakw’, the River District and others. And they could arrive much quicker than these mega projects.
Let’s pause and think about this for a moment. Unused existing zoning capacity in just the commercial “C” zones could accommodate virtually all of the city’s target for social housing for the next decade in low-rise, hence cheaper forms of development. No existing residential or commercial tenants would be permanently displaced. The city’s existing neighbourhood commercial fabric would not only be retained, but would be reinforced by the incremental additions of 3 storeys of residential atop street level commercial. So why isn’t this encouraged and happening already?
It’s not happening because a low-scale, 3-4 storey mixed use infill redevelopment that requires no rezoning will still require 1-2 years or more for city staff to run it through the permit grinder before construction can start. This is the real issue—it takes too long for city staff to consider, to negotiate, to impose their will on the work of experienced designers, builders and owners who know what their neighbourhood needs and wants and what existing zoning and building codes permit.
If you want a revolutionary increase in the volume of social and affordable housing in the city, simply make the city’s own processes work better. Owners who know they will need only months rather than years to obtain permission to build what is already included in neighbourhood zoning will come forward eagerly.
To conclude, and in the spirit of putting my money where my mouth is, I will be the first to volunteer my experience and expertise to a Community/Industry Advisory Panel that is truly empowered to make city hall’s development, design and construction processes work for the citizens of Vancouver. Motion B2 is not the answer. It attempts to answer the question, “How can we expedite the creation of so-called social housing?” while failing to ask the more fundamental question, “How have we come to such a pass where rather than manage and improve the performance of city staff and management in the creation of affordable and social housing, we would instead actively choose to disenfranchise the citizens of Vancouver?”
We need to address the second question first if ever we want to create affordable and social housing in the city of Vancouver. Thank you.
If only city hall would listen . I was appalled that councillor Boyle stubbornly tried to get this motion passed despite overwhelming opposition . Who runs the show who sets policy staff or council?
Excellent synopsis and recommendations. The bureaucracy has stifled itself for too long.
Thanks Geoff. Fingers crossed for future improvements
Brian, As you point out, they already have the answers given to them years ago. Now trying to re-invent the wheel on the fly. Not good government.
If only city hall would listen . I was appalled that councillor Boyle stubbornly tried to get this motion passed despite overwhelming opposition . Who runs the show who sets policy staff or council?