5 ms·

Wonderful. Absolutely adore the fact that they were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners. Absolutely deserved. Sad

Wonderful. 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 ago
NIMBYs 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 ago
    What 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.
almeria 5y ago
Absolutely adore the fact that they were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners. So you're saying that the descendants of the original indigenous owners, who had their land basically stolen from them by some combination of deceit, force, and outright genocide ... are "irrelevant NIMBYs"?
izend 5y ago
I live in Vancouver and there are two families in my daughter’s class that built one very large house with two kitchens (which is common here in Vancouver for a basement suite or wok kitchen) and in the final stage they built a dividing wall and basically have a duplex now on a lot zoned for single family detached.
- dionidium 5y ago
  Where I live in Providence, Rhode Island this is explicitly forbidden. The local zoning codes regulate the number of kitchens allowed in a single-family house. Of course, lots of illegal apartments exist.
- jbay808 5y ago
  I thought that almost all Vancouver SFHs are now permitted to be turned into duplexes? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/city-council-approves-rezoning-major-parts-of-vancouver-to-allow-duplexes-1.4830973 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/city-council...
jollybean 5y ago
" were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners." 1) This is about money. 2) Vancouver has had massive building in the last 25 years, it's transformed the city. Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right. 3) That said, this land belongs to a different group, they have special privileges, they can do as they please.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right. How far does the "right to control" extend? What if Van residents don't want Jews or Black people in their community? What if they don't want poor people? What if they just don't want any more people at all? Do they have the right to do any or all of these things?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "But what if the Grocery Store wants to ban Blacks! We can't have them decide what to carry, where to build, what prices to set!" It's not unreasonable to think about the limits of what kinds of control communities can have, but as you've posed it, it's completely rhetorical. Nobody is 'banning Blacks' from anywhere. The level of hysteria on these kinds of things is creaking into every discussion even when it's mostly inappropriate. Vancouver has a busy city with X homes, Y flats, a certain infrastructure and that's that. If they want to decide to not want skyscrapers everywhere, they can do that, and it has nothing to do with 'banning a group'. 'Tolerant and Progressive' Vancouver has made very material choices that have made living their excessively difficult for people living on the margins, and highly favourable to very wealthy non-citizens who want a place to keep their money safe. Which is their choice, but it's an odd one, more importantly, I don't think communities generally make choices to 'stop poor people', that's not part of the cards, rather policies indirectly do that. If there is a systematic issue at play here, it may be the 'growth mindset' of new world city managers and businesses, all of whom want 'more sales, more revenue, more tax revenue, more leverage, more power' etc. 'to build that thing and provide that service', never really contemplating something resembling actual sustainability.
908B64B197 5y ago
> 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. This is by design. The Vancouver market is aimed at rich foreigners trying to park questionnably acquired assets in a western jurisdiction. Often the house(s) will even be counted as "investment" to acquire citizenship. The income to house price is way better barely three hours south in the Puget Sound anyways. > I kind of wish developers would just start developing multi-plexes illegally. Why would they? They cost more to build, Create more supply and the buyers aren't price sensitive (remember, they are getting dirty money out of China). Better make sure there's as little supply as possible to get the best price.
- lwansbrough 5y ago
  > This is by design. The Vancouver market is aimed at rich foreigners trying to park questionnably acquired assets in a western jurisdiction. Of course Vancouver’s market is appealing, but it’s not because of foreign induced demand. Do you know anybody who doesn’t want to own a home here? 96% of housing purchased in BC is traceably domestic. There simply isn’t enough housing to meet the demand even amongst domestic buyers! > Why would they? They cost more to build, Create more supply They only cost more to build because of zoning bylaws. I’m not a building contractor but I have to imagine the cost per square foot is much lower for a low rise if you don’t have to factor in Comprehensive Development permits and community feedback sessions. Making development more financially accessible would also create new opportunity for smaller developers. It is Vancouver that has created the problem for itself, which creates the right circumstances for foreign investment to be lucrative, but it is very easy to solve. Just flood the market with supply.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > 96% of housing purchased in BC is traceably domestic. There simply isn’t enough housing to meet the demand even amongst domestic buyers! I wonder what qualifies as a "domestic" buyer. Does a Canadian corporation counts? Considering the real estate investment craze started in the 90's, with birth tourism it's now possible for investors to register the properties under their children's name. I'd be lying if I said I've never met anyone who did that. > would also create new opportunity for smaller developers. That's precisely what the existing developers don't want!

oh_sigh 5y ago

NIMBYs 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 ago
  What 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.

almeria 5y ago

Absolutely adore the fact that they were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners. So you're saying that the descendants of the original indigenous owners, who had their land basically stolen from them by some combination of deceit, force, and outright genocide ... are "irrelevant NIMBYs"?

izend 5y ago

I live in Vancouver and there are two families in my daughter’s class that built one very large house with two kitchens (which is common here in Vancouver for a basement suite or wok kitchen) and in the final stage they built a dividing wall and basically have a duplex now on a lot zoned for single family detached.

dionidium 5y ago
Where I live in Providence, Rhode Island this is explicitly forbidden. The local zoning codes regulate the number of kitchens allowed in a single-family house. Of course, lots of illegal apartments exist.
jbay808 5y ago
I thought that almost all Vancouver SFHs are now permitted to be turned into duplexes? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/city-council-approves-rezoning-major-parts-of-vancouver-to-allow-duplexes-1.4830973 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/city-council...

jollybean 5y ago

" were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners." 1) This is about money. 2) Vancouver has had massive building in the last 25 years, it's transformed the city. Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right. 3) That said, this land belongs to a different group, they have special privileges, they can do as they please.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right. How far does the "right to control" extend? What if Van residents don't want Jews or Black people in their community? What if they don't want poor people? What if they just don't want any more people at all? Do they have the right to do any or all of these things?
- jollybean 5y ago
  "But what if the Grocery Store wants to ban Blacks! We can't have them decide what to carry, where to build, what prices to set!" It's not unreasonable to think about the limits of what kinds of control communities can have, but as you've posed it, it's completely rhetorical. Nobody is 'banning Blacks' from anywhere. The level of hysteria on these kinds of things is creaking into every discussion even when it's mostly inappropriate. Vancouver has a busy city with X homes, Y flats, a certain infrastructure and that's that. If they want to decide to not want skyscrapers everywhere, they can do that, and it has nothing to do with 'banning a group'. 'Tolerant and Progressive' Vancouver has made very material choices that have made living their excessively difficult for people living on the margins, and highly favourable to very wealthy non-citizens who want a place to keep their money safe. Which is their choice, but it's an odd one, more importantly, I don't think communities generally make choices to 'stop poor people', that's not part of the cards, rather policies indirectly do that. If there is a systematic issue at play here, it may be the 'growth mindset' of new world city managers and businesses, all of whom want 'more sales, more revenue, more tax revenue, more leverage, more power' etc. 'to build that thing and provide that service', never really contemplating something resembling actual sustainability.

908B64B197 5y ago

> 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. This is by design. The Vancouver market is aimed at rich foreigners trying to park questionnably acquired assets in a western jurisdiction. Often the house(s) will even be counted as "investment" to acquire citizenship. The income to house price is way better barely three hours south in the Puget Sound anyways. > I kind of wish developers would just start developing multi-plexes illegally. Why would they? They cost more to build, Create more supply and the buyers aren't price sensitive (remember, they are getting dirty money out of China). Better make sure there's as little supply as possible to get the best price.

lwansbrough 5y ago
> This is by design. The Vancouver market is aimed at rich foreigners trying to park questionnably acquired assets in a western jurisdiction. Of course Vancouver’s market is appealing, but it’s not because of foreign induced demand. Do you know anybody who doesn’t want to own a home here? 96% of housing purchased in BC is traceably domestic. There simply isn’t enough housing to meet the demand even amongst domestic buyers! > Why would they? They cost more to build, Create more supply They only cost more to build because of zoning bylaws. I’m not a building contractor but I have to imagine the cost per square foot is much lower for a low rise if you don’t have to factor in Comprehensive Development permits and community feedback sessions. Making development more financially accessible would also create new opportunity for smaller developers. It is Vancouver that has created the problem for itself, which creates the right circumstances for foreign investment to be lucrative, but it is very easy to solve. Just flood the market with supply.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > 96% of housing purchased in BC is traceably domestic. There simply isn’t enough housing to meet the demand even amongst domestic buyers! I wonder what qualifies as a "domestic" buyer. Does a Canadian corporation counts? Considering the real estate investment craze started in the 90's, with birth tourism it's now possible for investors to register the properties under their children's name. I'd be lying if I said I've never met anyone who did that. > would also create new opportunity for smaller developers. That's precisely what the existing developers don't want!