18 ms·
A Multi-Billion Dollar Real Estate Project Is Rising on Native Land in Vancouver
- moneywoes 5y agoI wonder what this will do the home prices of adjacent properties in the Kits, one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in the area.
- epistasis 5y agoReally excited to see this move forward. It's been announced for many months, and been in design for a long time. This is what can happen when NIMBYs are finally cut out of the picture. So many people's lives will be improved by this project.
- TedShiller 5y agoActually everyone's lives will be collectively worsened. More development means more pollution, more depletion of natural resources. What is actually sustainable is less housing, not more housing.
- renewiltord 5y agoAll right, Thanos.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- steego 5y agoComparing him to Thanos isn’t fair. Thanos had an actionable (albeit unpopular) solution. This vague “actually it’s worse” nonsense is meaningless babble because it projects the problem through one simple dimension (number of houses) and ignores important things like average energy consumption per housing unit and average energy consumption for transportation.
- earleybird 5y agoThe downvotes and comments seem to be rather narrow minded. As the Wachowski's pointed out (years ago now) in the voice of agent Smith "You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area."
- epistasis 5y agoThis point of view seems far more narrow minded, to the point where it doesn't even deal with problems it claims to be concerned about. If you are concerned about "multiplying," then refusing to build housing does nothing to fix that. People living in cities with high incomes ans education and freedom to control their lives have fewer children than those who are poorer and live in less developed parts of the world. If you actually care about "multiplying" then you should be encouraging as many people as possible to move into urban areas for the greater economic, educational, and general awareness of the number of humans around them. Secondly, if you are the least bit concerned about natural resources, you should also be encouraging more people to live in urban areas, where they consumer far less resources, far less fossil fuels, and generally have far less impact on nature. Thirdly, that quote from a fictional character is just utter bullshit. Nobody is leaving Vancouver because they consumed all the resources, quite the opposite. People want to move there from other places, and not spread out. Opposition to projects like this forces people to spread out against their will. The only thing opposition to this project does is increase environmental impact of people, reduce their happiness and access to the high value resources of the city, and most crucially of all to current power holders, put people out of sight while they consume more and are less happy for it. So really, opposition to projects like this can only be viewed as an extreme form of greed. Adding in supposed concerns about nature, or multiplying, just points out that a person is just fine with both of things, as long as it's not insight. That is a fundamentally thoughtless, selfish, and asocial way to view the world, and it has caused immense harm over the last few decades.
- mfcl 5y agoWhat you mean is fewer people?
- nikanj 5y agoDo you live in a house?
- TedShiller 5y agoI wish I did
- tryptophan 5y agoDense housing like this is much more environmentally friendly and sustainable.
- TedShiller 5y agoif you've ever seen NYC or hong kong or any place like that, you know it's a wasteland. nice places have very little housing
- Arn_Thor 5y agoWriting from Hong Kong, I wonder what you mean by wasteland?
- TedShiller 5y agoIf you've been in a protected nature area, then you know what I mean by nature.
- Arn_Thor 5y agoThat really doesn't answer my question. But I'm getting the impression you're not here for conversation so never mind...
- epistasis 5y agoWe have tried four decades of your "let's limit housing" plan in California. In contrast to improving people's lives, it's made everybody's lives worse, through these means: 1) massive commutes by car 2) astronomical housing prices 3) forcing people out of state due to these massive housing prices 4) increased pollution because of increased commutes from further and further exurbs 5) massive homelessness from those that aren't able to move before they run out of money, or who hit a massive car or medical expense as the struggle to pay for housing. Take a peak at the carbon consumption of households in dense areas and suburban areas across the US: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cmjones/viz/USHouseholdCarbonFootprintbyZIpCode/Sheet2 https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cmjones/viz/USHouseho... Dense urban living is sustainable, suburban living is burning the planet. The world needs a lot more of these towers. If there's going to be less of any sort kf housing, it's time to tear down suburban homes.
- TedShiller 5y agomore housing is terrible for the environment
- lwansbrough 5y agoOkay Ted, then where shall they be housed? Unless you’re planning to cull people who dare to live in apartments, they’ve got to live somewhere. I guess you think we should close the door behind you? You and your friends were the last legitimate residents. Everyone else is responsible for growth, not you? So we’re back to the original question: rural, sub-urban or city? City living is by comparison actually the least environmentally damaging. (If you think cities are bad, wait until you try housing 8 billion people in single family homes.)
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoI'll volunteer to be culled but I'd like Ted to go first then see how I feel after the Earth is saved.
- alex_anglin 5y agoLives of Squamish Nation members will certainly be bettered, which is why they agreed to the arrangement.
- r00fus 5y agoI think the worry about overloaded resources is, maybe you need density first, then you can have funding for services created from the tax base. It's like the housing version of the field of dreams.
- Apocryphon 5y agoIf realized, this might be one of the first Solarpunk building developments.
- renewiltord 5y agoGenuinely excited for that. I love the Solarpunk aesthetic. The Park Royal in Singapore is awesome. Qiyi City Forest Gardens may not have worked out but it’s a good look for sure.
- whoknowswhat11 5y agoWow. The renderings are always misleading, but there is no way this type of project could easily be approved in a traditional planning process https://senakw.com/img/vision/MountainTowersfromVanierPark.jpg https://senakw.com/img/vision/MountainTowersfromVanierPark.j... They obviously did not try to fit into "neighborhood character" - very impressive though looking at details (the bikeable underground garage, the density + green space combo - super interesting).
- clpm4j 5y agoThe renderings are awesome because it's the phase when architects let their true artistic vision shine without much thought to cost. Then reality hits, and the buildings (usually) never look even 25% as nice. But in this case if they can get 25% of that vision in reality they'll still be better looker buildings than 98% of what you see in Vancouver today.
- jzymbaluk 5y agoWhat I love about this project is that it's a huge win-win for both the Squamish nation, and Canadian vancouverites. They're building affordable housing for members of the Squamish nation, bringing their people back together onto their native land and funding it by renting out market-rate housing and offices to non-native Vancouverites. I'm very excited about this project. I wish it all the success in the world, and I hope other housing-starved localities are taking notes
- smnrchrds 5y ago> ... because the reserve land is not subject to the bylaws of the city that it surrounds, it will also feature a style and scale of density more typically found in cities like Hong Kong.
- TedShiller 5y agoIt looked a lot nicer when it was just nature
- epistasis 5y agoThere is a tremendous negative cost to keeping this little tiny chunk as "just nature." If it weren't for these buildings, we would need thousands and thousands of homes sprawled out across many square miles, requiring roads, and literally millions of vehicle miles every year. This sort of structure preserves nature and allows thousands of people to experience Vancouver that would not be able to otherwise. Stanley Park is close by for those who want actual nature, rather than the little speck of lawns that was where these buildings are being built.
- admax88qqq 5y ago> If it weren't for these buildings, we would need thousands and thousands of homes sprawled out across many square miles. I mean you could build these towers elsewherez perhaps even demolishing some existing single family dwellings. Youve made a bit of a false dichotomy here.
- jkestner 5y agoMaybe there’s a reason we don’t see skyscrapers out in the suburbs? The whole deal here is that this project happens only because 1) the Squamish got some of their land back, and it's in an urban area with all the infrastructure one could want, and 2) as reserve land, it’s not subject to the city’s zoning laws, so they YIMBY'd a forward-thinking project.
- epistasis 5y agoCould you point to this other plot of land? This land is Squamish land, which is the only reason it's getting built. Otherwise greedy neighbors would block it.
- admax88qqq 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- danans 5y agoAh, the old "tree covered building" render. Putting trees on buildings might make them green as in color, but doesn't make them "green" as in environmentally sound. Supporting all those trees requires a lot of concrete, and the maintenance of the trees is another issue. On balance, it's a gimmick [1]. There are few real world examples of buildings like this (one in Italy I believe) but it ended up being a far cry from the original renders. 1. https://persquaremile.com/2013/03/07/trees-dont-like-it-up-there/ https://persquaremile.com/2013/03/07/trees-dont-like-it-up-t...
- jzymbaluk 5y agoYou're right about the unfeasibility of trees on buildings, but one clarification is that these buildings are actually Mass Timber construction, so they're using wood as the main support structure instead of steel and concrete. That's one of the reasons this project is going to be able to be carbon-neutral if not carbon negative
- epistasis 5y agoThe amount of concrete is pretty insignificant compared to variability of building operations in terms of heating/cooling. I've spent a ton of time reviewing embodied carbon, since that's probably the strongest critique against this sort of structure, but I can't find numbers that make me the least bit concerned. Plus,people like greenery, if that's a "gimmick" bring it on. In addition, compared to the major consumer of greenhouse gases, poor land use requiring massive personal vehicle use, and the poor thermal envelopes with far larger surface to volume ration that happens with single unit development, these sort of critiques are missing the forest for the trees.
- bckygldstn 5y agoI've lived in an apartment building with grassy shrubs on the facade, I liked it! They were a low-maintenance species, and had automated irrigation in the soil so nether me or the building owner had to touch them. I wouldn't be surprised if they're a net environmental cost, but the cost has to be small compared to the overall impact of the building construction, and they have other benefits. The plants look nice from inside and outside, provide a bit of privacy without blocking too much light, and deaden road noise.
- buildbot 5y agoThis headline might lead you to believe this is a developer taking advantage/stealing from a First Nations Tribe - not the case, this is actually being done by the group themselves! Really cool style and density right here makes sense - it's not like they are developing a section of Pacific Spirit Park for this.
- version_five 5y agoRight, so the tribe (band?) leadership will take advantage to enrich themselves. There is zero chance this will actually benefit the "rank and file" - like all handouts, it will just be stolen by the leadership and friends
- protomyth 5y agoDepends on the tribe / band. Some are much better than others. In the US, you can generally see it with the casino profits (well, except for states like North Dakota where the state compact doesn't allow direct payments).
- oh_sigh 5y agoThe casino profits frequently benefit a select few who are a part of the club, and then the club doesn't let anyone else in, keeping the profits for themselves. Even if you can show you have 100% native ancestry of your given tribe, it is not a given that you will be allowed to officially become part of the tribe.
- steego 5y agoHonestly, it just sounds like you’re hand waving the same old line. I’d love to see a citation or two. My wife’s band settled a huge land claim not too far back. This land claim resulted in a cash payout to all 3000 band members and the rest of the money was put into a trust.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
- lwansbrough 5y agoWonderful. Absolutely adore the fact that they were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners. Absolutely deserved. Sadly the rest of the development in Vancouver is no where near the pace it needs to be to keep housing prices down, so this is merely a drop in the bucket. And it’s also unfortunately perpetuating the idea that the only housing that can be built are single family homes and high rises. I kind of wish developers would just start developing multi-plexes illegally. Good luck arguing it’s environmentally sustainable to block multi-family homes by forcing new developments to be torn down. Obviously this is unrealistic but it’s the kind of activism that needs to happen to overpower the powerful minority of homeowners in this province.
- oh_sigh 5y agoNIMBYs suck, but it seems wrong to have this bifurcated justice system where different people are subject to different rules, regulations, and laws depending on their identity.
- boplicity 5y ago> different people are subject to different rules, regulations, and laws depending on their identity. Actually, there were wars, treaties, legal agreements, etc that created this system. It has little to do with identity, in terms of how it came about. Except, maybe, for the fact that certain "identities" were subject to genocide for much of the 20th century.
- oh_sigh 5y agoWhat part of my post made you think I don't understand how these systems came to be in place? And what you're arguing does not follow. If I said that the Chinese Exclusion Acts in the US were based on identity, would you respond "Actually it was based on legal agreements"? It makes no sense. Clearly there are treaties and agreements that created the system that results in treating people different based on their identities. My point is that the system currently is more harmful to everyone - specifically native people - than a consistent system based on individuals.
- georgewfraser 5y agoIt’s fantastic that they’re bypassing the NIMBYs and building high density, but it’s terrible that they’re building the 10,000th attempt at modern architecture’s worst idea, “towers in the park”, which fails every time it is tried.
- jollybean 5y agoThese arguments about the NIMBYs are a bit ridiculous. Every community has the right to build, or not, as they chose. You have no say in someone else's community. Even then, Vancouver has added quite a bit over the last 25 years. Finally, the notion that 'constant building' will make homes more affordable is just not true, the most dense places in the US are among the most expensive. Given that this is a different bit of land, under different governance, they can do as they please, that's fine.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago> Every community has the right to build, or not, as they chose. The problem with this way of thinking about it is that communities are not people, and they do not "make a choice" in an organic, unified way. Instead, questions about development get resolved through messy, often complex political processes, with the outcome often reflecting specific subsets of the community rather than the whole. In addition, there's the time preference problem, in which the decisions and choices of today's community is given excessive weight compared to those of the many different future communities that could emerge with different decisions.
- jollybean 5y agoIt's fair to point out that building and permits may not be very democratic, but the argument being made here is generally that people in a community shouldn't be allowed to decided. Some people believe that they ought to be able to have homes bulldozed and skycrapers build 'because they want something'. There is basically infinity livable space in the US, so find a place that works. Employers will have to adjust to cost of living.
- 5y ago
- jmac01 5y agoThe project looks amazing but Westbank doesn't inspire confidence. There's been a lot of issues coming up with Westbank's Vancouver House recently. Underground explosion months ago, flooding a week or so ago. Hopefully these new buildings are more reliable
- brailsafe 5y agoLooks like a nice departure from the upsetting seafoam green copy/pasted Concord Pacific towers that are built everywhere.