7 ms·

B.C. looks to standardize multiplex designs as latest fix to housing crisis

74 points by cf100clunk 3y ago

cf100clunk 3y ago
Conceptually related to the recent ''L.A. Dingbats'' discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=38252918 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=38252918
baybal2 3y ago
[dead]
lwansbrough 3y ago
For those not up to date on the developments here in BC, there are a number of interesting solutions being implemented currently: - Unification of residential zones into a single zone with (marginally) higher density, which could make it easier to further increase density in the future - BC Ministry of Housing has brought forth legislation to upzone housing in concentric rings of decreasing density around transit stations, with allowable minimums up to 20 stories in the nearest ring, where in many cases single family homes currently stand. - Senakw development: native land still under control by a local native tribe is not subject to housing bylaws and is now being developed into several large towers (without parking requirements!) - An even larger development has been proposed using the same land rights on the Jericho lands just west of Senakw, which proposes around 10,000 new homes and a new subway station which would count as another transit station for nearby development of what is currently extremely underutilized land. - This new BC special, although I’ve heard it may not be automatically applicable to Vancouver because Vancouver has special privileges to enforce its own building code (?)
- epistasis 3y ago
  The ~Senakw~ Squamish Nation are literally my heroes. They are doing amazing things to push back on terrible reactionary planning in Vancouver that has made it unaffordable to entire generations of people, merely to satisfy a few people who want high property valuations and have an antisocial attitude of not wanting to see other people. Such people should simply choose to live somewhere other than a huge city, and should stop trying to prevent others from living as they wish to.
  - lwansbrough 3y ago
    I would be very much in favour of returning more land back to our local tribes if this is how it would be used. Seems like a great loophole to get around offensively poor city planning.
  - asploder 3y ago
    I couldn't agree more with your enthusiasm, but it's worth noting that Senakw is the name of the development, and the Squamish Nation are the people backing it. More details on the Senakw development are available from the Squamish Nation's website: https://senakw.com/ https://senakw.com/
    - epistasis 3y ago
      Oops, thanks! I've been following Khelsilem for a while but do not live near the area, and have only visited several times. Would love to live there eventually if prices fall a bit.
- dagmx 3y ago
  I’m really hopeful about the higher density housing around transit. Vancouver’s housing crisis is always juxtaposed by so many derelict Vancouver Special homes just sitting around , and swathes of area just being unused
  - __turbobrew__ 3y ago
    Even today you can take the expo line from Metrotown to New west and there are vast swaths of single family homes around stations like royal oak. They just started building more density around there lately, but the expo line is 37 years old and the municipality is just starting to build up around the skytrain stations. It would be interesting if the standardized buildings could somewhat be pre-fabbed offsite, I would imagine that would significantly reduce building costs. That doesn’t fix the problem where a single city sized lot in Vancouver costs over 1.5 million dollars, but if you ammortize that over 3 separate dwellings the land cost becomes more affordable for professionals.
    - namibj 3y ago
      Or even just have the work (past-foundations) partitioned into 1~3 day long chunks, and bus the crews to the nearby construction plots/lots so that each worker gets through dozens of ~identical 1~3 day jobs at equally many buildings, doing the exact same tasks for each of those buildings. It's not a problem shuttling them up to an hour each way per day from their home to the site (and back), at least before efficiency improvements get overshadowed by the commuting overhead. And yeah, pre-cutting tasks to e.g. prep cable terminations for outlets, outlet holes in drywall, floor tiles/panels to fit perfectly, etc., should not be a problem to substantially automate in a factory, thanks to modern technology for mapping/ensuring mounting dimensions are spot-on as is required for all pre-cut things to correctly line up. Have the factory robots sort the pre-cut parts for shipping such that they get pulled from the pallet/crate in the order they're added (mounted) to the house, maybe with a QR code and/or RFID-sticker to search/check nothing got mixed up. Combine the tag with e.g. the cable-end-protector-cap that's stuck to the cable ends to protect the bare copper and also protect other things from getting poked/scratched, until the cable is pulled through the walls/conduits to the termination boxes. Check at each end if the cable belongs there, right before peeling the cap off for reuse at the factory (just a fresh sticky bandage or such needed). Running such an approach ought to yield a lot of experience in the automation/organizing/design-for-manufacturing "residential/office construction engineering/architecture" areas, which is naturally local talent due to site visits and hands-on (factory) process debugging needs. Thus having that talent should be a competitive advantage due to it making further projects like it significantly easier, massively reducing the burden of "construction takes time and skilled manpower" on their city's desires to outpace competitors with advanced city/neighborhood design: keeping up with demand for walkable-distance dwellings around new transit stations cuts the time-until-ROI for that transit infrastructure. And more critically, it speeds the feedback loop for the design of such infrastructure, as newly constructed (according to updated designs) transit stations in places without "dense city" in the way quickly rise to nominal (pedestrian) utilization. 2 years vs. 5 years changes whether after 10 years you build the second generation, or already know how the 4th generation performed. Of course these are just what-if speculative examples to illustrate how impactful/enabling some of these changes/approaches can be.
- voisin 3y ago
  > Unification of residential zones into a single zone with (marginally) higher density, which could make it easier to further increase density in the future Isn’t it going to be BC-wide (except for towns below 5,000 people, or where the vacancy rate is above 5%) that every lot will now “as of right” allow for a minimum of 3 dwelling units per lot, growing to 4 when the lot is a certain size, and then up to 6 if the lot is even larger? To me that’s a big step up (3-6x current density!).
  - bardak 3y ago
    Yeah it is almost entirely province wide and pretty much every lot is going to be allowed to have 4 dwellings on it. Only the smallest lots (<280m^2 or <3000sqft) will be limited to 3 dwellings. The 6 dwelling regulations are still to come but I am optimistic they will be pretty permissive. The other thing that I think a lot of people are glossing over is the requirement for the municipalities to plan and rezone for 20 years of growth every 5 years. No more having to apply for rezoning for a project that is in line with what the cities have planned.
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  For the developments on First Nations lands, will those housing units be open to all or just band members? If the former, how do the legal aspects work for those who are not members of that band? I always got the impression that First Nations land, even inside of cities, were mainly populated with members of that band.
  - bardak 3y ago
    I believe that the units will all be market rentals but it is not uncommon for urban first nation bands to sell leasehold housing on their land as they cannot sell the land outright as per the Indian Act. It gets a lot more complicated when you delve into bands such that the Tsawwassen First Nation who have new modern treaties and don't fall under the Indian Act but they are more of an exception.
  - lwansbrough 3y ago
    In terms of rentals, yes. If there is any sales it is usually leasehold as the other comment mentioned. You typically also see a portion of units allocated for non-market accommodations for first nations people, as is this case for Senakw if I recall correctly.
- bawolff 3y ago
  > Senakw development: native land still under control by a local native tribe is not subject to housing bylaws and is now being developed into several large towers (without parking requirements!) Huh, interesting. Is the plan that people who live there just won't have cars?
  - owenwil 3y ago
    Ideally, yes—it’s very close to downtown and accessible by public transit. A lot of people in cities don’t need or want cars, and this type of development will attract them because it’s likely to be cheaper than an equivalent with a parking space. People here might own cars, but it’s up to them to find parking and pay for it themselves, rather than building it into the cost of buying/renting for everyone in these buildings—building without minimums means much cheaper building costs. It’s working in other cities where it’s being deployed and is a great way to incentivize cities to invest in car alternatives.
- namibj 3y ago
  "allowable minimums of up to 20 stories in the nearest ring"? Does that mean at least 20 stories of the building won't be permitted? Or does it mean that buildings up to and including 20 stories can't be rejected with "too dense" as the reason given to the permit-requester?
  - bardak 3y ago
    The latter. It is the minimum the municipalities can restrict density to. They can allow higher densities but can't restrict density below the minimum.
gustavus 3y ago
> The province is looking to select a consultant to create a selection of standardized designs for small-scale, multi-unit homes, such as townhomes, triplexes and laneway homes, Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon announced Thursday (Nov. 16). This seems to be the closest one could get to do nothing while still technically doing something. You do not need to hire an expensive consultant. We have been building duplexes and triplexes and quadplexs for decades. This is going to be some lightly disguised graft mark my words. They will spend hundreds of thousands on this consultant to produce a plan of whicht they will make 10 and then forget about when the next charlatan or conman comes into town. You know what they really need is a monorail.
- bardak 3y ago
  The biggest legislative changes that preceded this is rezoning practically every single family lot to allow 4-plexes by right so that some charlatan can't come by and stop you from building it. This is just creating affordable preapprove designs to make it easier to take advantage of the rezoning. The government is also forcing rezoning around transit stations and bus exchanges for much higher densities with heights of between 8-20 stories (or higher based on municipal planning) allowed within 800m. While not a monorail there is a 16km elevated train extension going on in the suburbs
cperciva 3y ago
According to the Vancouver Heritage Foundation, Vancouver Specials are “front-gabled, two-storey boxy built on grade with very shallow-pitched roofs.” Technically below-grade: The Vancouver Special originated as a hack in zoning bylaws, whereby any floor 18" below grade was as a "basement" and didn't count towards the floor area limit, allowing larger houses than were otherwise permitted.
- bardak 3y ago
  The wierd thing is that while Vancouver specials aren't small they are not huge either. I find it hard to picture how small the average Vancouver home would be if people had to live on half the area that most houses had.
  - SpecialistK 3y ago
    I imagine a lot of people will be very happy with whatever they can get, so long as it's affordable. Lots of places have very compact apartments (Tokyo, NYC, London) and people adapt.
erickribeiro 3y ago
These attempts at increasing density in Vancouver and surrounding areas fail to account for the lack of services and infrastructure to support a growing population. Metro Vancouver already is one of the most congested regions in North America. There is a severe health care shortage with more than a million people struggling to access family doctors and specialists. The region also routinely experiences drought conditions and water usage advisories during spring and summer months. The municipalities understand these factors limiting growth, but the province and federal government seem to believe we can grow the population forever. It’s a disaster in the making, in my opinion as a long time resident.
- helen___keller 3y ago
  Services and infrastructure can and must grow as well. It’s one thing if you disbelieve your government is prepared to solve these problems, but the difficulties of managing a growing population are neither novel nor intractable > It’s a disaster in the making, in my opinion as a long time resident. Unaffordable housing is already a disaster.
- SpecialistK 3y ago
  The region is experiencing hugely fast growth and the strain is definitely being felt. Zoning and infrastructure decisions made decades ago are really biting us in the ass. Plots of land cost millions yet there are several gaping holes in the Skytrain network. Major thoroughfares like Hwy 1 exits get incomplete maintenance. Locals who went to UBC, SFU, or BCIT can only afford to live in deep Maple Ridge or Cloverdale and then pay our gas prices for the privilege of working in the CoV. The same CoV that has single family density like you'd expect in Surrey. It's a mess, and big solutions like expanding the West Coast Express to all-day service with a few more stations so that suburbs can reliably grow into the valley aren't even being mentioned. One level of government says "$amount of immigration" and it's up to the province (or delegated to municipalities) to try to adapt. Meanwhile the residents of those municipalities resist any changes to density or zoning. And as a result, we get the mess we're in now.
pfannkuchen 3y ago
Feels like some kind of hoarder stressing about all their boxes being filled up with stuff, while at the same time continuing to acquire more stuff. Sure, you can keep buying more boxes forever, but have you considered accumulating less stuff? A reasonable solution probably includes both.
_kst_ 3y ago
I suggest updating the title to say "British Columbia". (I thought it might be Baja California.)
wesleyd 3y ago
While I think this is wonderful, it is surreal that a province more than three times the size of Texas, with a smaller population than metro Houston could have a “housing crisis”.
- jrgaston 3y ago
  You might want to check your units. BC is a bit bigger than Texas, but not 3x.
  - wesleyd 3y ago
    So it isn’t! TY! It’s not even one and a half times the size! Nonetheless, my point stands. Bigger than Texas, a sixth the population, yet a housing crisis. I’m sure there are good reasons - like the Rockies - and managing not to sprawl is commendable, but still: surreal.
    - cf100clunk 3y ago
      The Rockies, yes, but also the Selkirks, Purcells, heck, the entire Pacific Coast Range. Seriously, there is little comparison in the topographies. The amount of B.C. land suited to urban populations is miniscule compared to the over all size of the land mass. The climate is almost diametrically different between Texas and B.C., so there's that too. Entire mountain passes are blocked by snow on a regular basis in winter and require enormous effort to clear. Look for the TV show about the B.C. highway towing truckers and you'll get a feel for what is faced. Building urban centres in such places is impossible. Therefore, your point was, to use your own term, ''surreal'', so my opinion is that for obvious geographical reasons it does not stand.
- nucleardog 3y ago
  “Housing crisis” is not a function of density, but a function of how much demand outstrips supply. The real question to be asking is why the two have been so far apart for so long as to allow us to get to this point.
  - 3y ago
emptybits 3y ago
Our provincial and city governments are shuffling around papers, probably to some benefit, but the Senakw development is most interesting recent change to watch IMO.[1] The Squamish Nation's bet is essentially: economics (demand) should drive development, not legacy urban planning and legacy zoning and bylaws. This is testing an important hypothesis IMO. It's 10 acres of prime downtown real estate in one of the most expensive markets in the world. So if this wasn't self-governed indigenous land, the experiment would never be allowed to happen. A cluster of 11 towers, some over 50 storeys... A good outcome is not guaranteed, so grab your popcorn, Vancouver. My fingers are crossed for them. [1] https://senakw.com/vision https://senakw.com/vision
- applied_heat 3y ago
  What negative outcomes do you foresee? Surely they will build the first tower, ensure it is adequately utilized, then build the next one etc?
  - emptybits 3y ago
    Nimbys in the neighbourhood have their usual negative predictions ... traffic will be worse, parking will be impossible, precious views will be lost, transit will become strained, etc. This is all possible. The latter is, I think, solvable. OTOH, thousands of much-needed rental homes will become available in the center of the city. That positive outcome seems highly likely.
kyboren 3y ago
Bring on the Canadian Khrushchyovka! Or is it Trudovka? Ebyovka?
- filoleg 3y ago
  Is the last one also referencing someone else’s name that is meaningful (similar to the first two) or was it just a curse-word joke?
SpecialistK 3y ago
I'm shocked by how long it's taken for these steps to be made. Very little has changed since I first came to Vancouver 20 years ago - limited geography (mountains north, ocean west, US border south); desirable location (most moderate climate in the country, stunning natural beauty, closest to Asia); lots of international press as "most livable city"; low density zoning right next to downtown; etc. The issue was not /as/ bad back then, but the "Crack Shack or Mansion?" online quiz, wherein you had to guess if a house was a drug den or a $1,000,000+ property was 13 years ago. Affordability has been an issue for decades. Governments have gone through the steps of limiting foreign ownership of housing and AirBnB, but changing zoning is new. Probably because of NIMBYs and established homeowners not wanting to lose their newfound real estate wealth. However the cost-of-living increases in food prices and interest rates post-pandemic are making affordability the top concern in the country, and the federal government's polling numbers are in the toilet. The provincial BC NDP are very, very popular and have been in power for several years, so I think this is really a sign that the tides are turning IRT polling and popular opinion. Maybe boomer and gen-X homeowners are starting to realize that an extra $500,000 in home value isn't worth your kids staying in the basement into their 30s, an insurmountable gap between wages and housing, or homelessness (there's also the substance debate, which is beyond this news.) There's a brilliant YouTube channel called "About Here" which I highly recommend for those interested in the socioeconomic challenges facing Vancouver. The cruel irony is that a place so commonly lauded as "most livable" has so many issues that make living here difficult.
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  Wouldn't the boomer held single family land be worth way more with higher density zoning allowed? Isn't it more like an extra 500k in my pocket and my kids moving out is worth trading the back yard and garage for a slightly smaller apartment/rowhouse and utilizing public parks for what was once done in the backyard, while mostly taking transit/uber?
  - SpecialistK 3y ago
    You'd think so, but... - a lot of people (especially those who have owned their homes since the 70s or 80s) probably don't want to rebuild or have a year of construction in their yards as they approach retirement - if everyone turns their single home into 2-4plexes, the supply will meet demand and prices will plummet massively, especially in the outer suburbs like Maple Ridge, Langley, or Tsawwassen that would otherwise be less desirable. Classic game theory. - transit hasn't matched growth and big parts of the region are underserved. Surrey, the largest suburb and soon to have more population than the City of Vancouver, has 4 stations on the SkyTrain system. Vancouver has 20. Burnaby, the next suburb (yet less than half the population of Surrey), has 11. - Both Uber and transit have some issues, like the requirement for commercial drivers licenses to drive for Uber/Lyft (an attempt to moderate the outrage from taxi drivers) and perceived safety issues on transit (my own brother-in-law has been assaulted on the train) It really is the perfect storm of a city that is growing way faster than was ever envisioned; the opioid crisis (related but tangential from this discussion); external influence from "most livable" lists and expatriate investments; high immigration with no limit on where you settle (section 6 of the Charter) making most people go to Vancouver or Toronto; the geography of the area; and the politics of the region being one of the few places in the country where the 3 largest parties all have a chance in many ridings (meaning more promises and concessions made.)

74 points by cf100clunk 3y ago

Conceptually related to the recent ''L.A. Dingbats'' discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=38252918 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=38252918

baybal2 3y ago

[dead]

lwansbrough 3y ago

For those not up to date on the developments here in BC, there are a number of interesting solutions being implemented currently: - Unification of residential zones into a single zone with (marginally) higher density, which could make it easier to further increase density in the future - BC Ministry of Housing has brought forth legislation to upzone housing in concentric rings of decreasing density around transit stations, with allowable minimums up to 20 stories in the nearest ring, where in many cases single family homes currently stand. - Senakw development: native land still under control by a local native tribe is not subject to housing bylaws and is now being developed into several large towers (without parking requirements!) - An even larger development has been proposed using the same land rights on the Jericho lands just west of Senakw, which proposes around 10,000 new homes and a new subway station which would count as another transit station for nearby development of what is currently extremely underutilized land. - This new BC special, although I’ve heard it may not be automatically applicable to Vancouver because Vancouver has special privileges to enforce its own building code (?)

epistasis 3y ago
The ~Senakw~ Squamish Nation are literally my heroes. They are doing amazing things to push back on terrible reactionary planning in Vancouver that has made it unaffordable to entire generations of people, merely to satisfy a few people who want high property valuations and have an antisocial attitude of not wanting to see other people. Such people should simply choose to live somewhere other than a huge city, and should stop trying to prevent others from living as they wish to.
- lwansbrough 3y ago
  I would be very much in favour of returning more land back to our local tribes if this is how it would be used. Seems like a great loophole to get around offensively poor city planning.
- asploder 3y ago
  I couldn't agree more with your enthusiasm, but it's worth noting that Senakw is the name of the development, and the Squamish Nation are the people backing it. More details on the Senakw development are available from the Squamish Nation's website: https://senakw.com/ https://senakw.com/
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Oops, thanks! I've been following Khelsilem for a while but do not live near the area, and have only visited several times. Would love to live there eventually if prices fall a bit.
dagmx 3y ago
I’m really hopeful about the higher density housing around transit. Vancouver’s housing crisis is always juxtaposed by so many derelict Vancouver Special homes just sitting around , and swathes of area just being unused
- __turbobrew__ 3y ago
  Even today you can take the expo line from Metrotown to New west and there are vast swaths of single family homes around stations like royal oak. They just started building more density around there lately, but the expo line is 37 years old and the municipality is just starting to build up around the skytrain stations. It would be interesting if the standardized buildings could somewhat be pre-fabbed offsite, I would imagine that would significantly reduce building costs. That doesn’t fix the problem where a single city sized lot in Vancouver costs over 1.5 million dollars, but if you ammortize that over 3 separate dwellings the land cost becomes more affordable for professionals.
  - namibj 3y ago
    Or even just have the work (past-foundations) partitioned into 1~3 day long chunks, and bus the crews to the nearby construction plots/lots so that each worker gets through dozens of ~identical 1~3 day jobs at equally many buildings, doing the exact same tasks for each of those buildings. It's not a problem shuttling them up to an hour each way per day from their home to the site (and back), at least before efficiency improvements get overshadowed by the commuting overhead. And yeah, pre-cutting tasks to e.g. prep cable terminations for outlets, outlet holes in drywall, floor tiles/panels to fit perfectly, etc., should not be a problem to substantially automate in a factory, thanks to modern technology for mapping/ensuring mounting dimensions are spot-on as is required for all pre-cut things to correctly line up. Have the factory robots sort the pre-cut parts for shipping such that they get pulled from the pallet/crate in the order they're added (mounted) to the house, maybe with a QR code and/or RFID-sticker to search/check nothing got mixed up. Combine the tag with e.g. the cable-end-protector-cap that's stuck to the cable ends to protect the bare copper and also protect other things from getting poked/scratched, until the cable is pulled through the walls/conduits to the termination boxes. Check at each end if the cable belongs there, right before peeling the cap off for reuse at the factory (just a fresh sticky bandage or such needed). Running such an approach ought to yield a lot of experience in the automation/organizing/design-for-manufacturing "residential/office construction engineering/architecture" areas, which is naturally local talent due to site visits and hands-on (factory) process debugging needs. Thus having that talent should be a competitive advantage due to it making further projects like it significantly easier, massively reducing the burden of "construction takes time and skilled manpower" on their city's desires to outpace competitors with advanced city/neighborhood design: keeping up with demand for walkable-distance dwellings around new transit stations cuts the time-until-ROI for that transit infrastructure. And more critically, it speeds the feedback loop for the design of such infrastructure, as newly constructed (according to updated designs) transit stations in places without "dense city" in the way quickly rise to nominal (pedestrian) utilization. 2 years vs. 5 years changes whether after 10 years you build the second generation, or already know how the 4th generation performed. Of course these are just what-if speculative examples to illustrate how impactful/enabling some of these changes/approaches can be.
voisin 3y ago
> Unification of residential zones into a single zone with (marginally) higher density, which could make it easier to further increase density in the future Isn’t it going to be BC-wide (except for towns below 5,000 people, or where the vacancy rate is above 5%) that every lot will now “as of right” allow for a minimum of 3 dwelling units per lot, growing to 4 when the lot is a certain size, and then up to 6 if the lot is even larger? To me that’s a big step up (3-6x current density!).
- bardak 3y ago
  Yeah it is almost entirely province wide and pretty much every lot is going to be allowed to have 4 dwellings on it. Only the smallest lots (<280m^2 or <3000sqft) will be limited to 3 dwellings. The 6 dwelling regulations are still to come but I am optimistic they will be pretty permissive. The other thing that I think a lot of people are glossing over is the requirement for the municipalities to plan and rezone for 20 years of growth every 5 years. No more having to apply for rezoning for a project that is in line with what the cities have planned.
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
For the developments on First Nations lands, will those housing units be open to all or just band members? If the former, how do the legal aspects work for those who are not members of that band? I always got the impression that First Nations land, even inside of cities, were mainly populated with members of that band.
- bardak 3y ago
  I believe that the units will all be market rentals but it is not uncommon for urban first nation bands to sell leasehold housing on their land as they cannot sell the land outright as per the Indian Act. It gets a lot more complicated when you delve into bands such that the Tsawwassen First Nation who have new modern treaties and don't fall under the Indian Act but they are more of an exception.
- lwansbrough 3y ago
  In terms of rentals, yes. If there is any sales it is usually leasehold as the other comment mentioned. You typically also see a portion of units allocated for non-market accommodations for first nations people, as is this case for Senakw if I recall correctly.
bawolff 3y ago
> Senakw development: native land still under control by a local native tribe is not subject to housing bylaws and is now being developed into several large towers (without parking requirements!) Huh, interesting. Is the plan that people who live there just won't have cars?
- owenwil 3y ago
  Ideally, yes—it’s very close to downtown and accessible by public transit. A lot of people in cities don’t need or want cars, and this type of development will attract them because it’s likely to be cheaper than an equivalent with a parking space. People here might own cars, but it’s up to them to find parking and pay for it themselves, rather than building it into the cost of buying/renting for everyone in these buildings—building without minimums means much cheaper building costs. It’s working in other cities where it’s being deployed and is a great way to incentivize cities to invest in car alternatives.
namibj 3y ago
"allowable minimums of up to 20 stories in the nearest ring"? Does that mean at least 20 stories of the building won't be permitted? Or does it mean that buildings up to and including 20 stories can't be rejected with "too dense" as the reason given to the permit-requester?
- bardak 3y ago
  The latter. It is the minimum the municipalities can restrict density to. They can allow higher densities but can't restrict density below the minimum.

gustavus 3y ago

> The province is looking to select a consultant to create a selection of standardized designs for small-scale, multi-unit homes, such as townhomes, triplexes and laneway homes, Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon announced Thursday (Nov. 16). This seems to be the closest one could get to do nothing while still technically doing something. You do not need to hire an expensive consultant. We have been building duplexes and triplexes and quadplexs for decades. This is going to be some lightly disguised graft mark my words. They will spend hundreds of thousands on this consultant to produce a plan of whicht they will make 10 and then forget about when the next charlatan or conman comes into town. You know what they really need is a monorail.

bardak 3y ago
The biggest legislative changes that preceded this is rezoning practically every single family lot to allow 4-plexes by right so that some charlatan can't come by and stop you from building it. This is just creating affordable preapprove designs to make it easier to take advantage of the rezoning. The government is also forcing rezoning around transit stations and bus exchanges for much higher densities with heights of between 8-20 stories (or higher based on municipal planning) allowed within 800m. While not a monorail there is a 16km elevated train extension going on in the suburbs

cperciva 3y ago

According to the Vancouver Heritage Foundation, Vancouver Specials are “front-gabled, two-storey boxy built on grade with very shallow-pitched roofs.” Technically below-grade: The Vancouver Special originated as a hack in zoning bylaws, whereby any floor 18" below grade was as a "basement" and didn't count towards the floor area limit, allowing larger houses than were otherwise permitted.

bardak 3y ago
The wierd thing is that while Vancouver specials aren't small they are not huge either. I find it hard to picture how small the average Vancouver home would be if people had to live on half the area that most houses had.
- SpecialistK 3y ago
  I imagine a lot of people will be very happy with whatever they can get, so long as it's affordable. Lots of places have very compact apartments (Tokyo, NYC, London) and people adapt.

erickribeiro 3y ago

These attempts at increasing density in Vancouver and surrounding areas fail to account for the lack of services and infrastructure to support a growing population. Metro Vancouver already is one of the most congested regions in North America. There is a severe health care shortage with more than a million people struggling to access family doctors and specialists. The region also routinely experiences drought conditions and water usage advisories during spring and summer months. The municipalities understand these factors limiting growth, but the province and federal government seem to believe we can grow the population forever. It’s a disaster in the making, in my opinion as a long time resident.

helen___keller 3y ago
Services and infrastructure can and must grow as well. It’s one thing if you disbelieve your government is prepared to solve these problems, but the difficulties of managing a growing population are neither novel nor intractable > It’s a disaster in the making, in my opinion as a long time resident. Unaffordable housing is already a disaster.
SpecialistK 3y ago
The region is experiencing hugely fast growth and the strain is definitely being felt. Zoning and infrastructure decisions made decades ago are really biting us in the ass. Plots of land cost millions yet there are several gaping holes in the Skytrain network. Major thoroughfares like Hwy 1 exits get incomplete maintenance. Locals who went to UBC, SFU, or BCIT can only afford to live in deep Maple Ridge or Cloverdale and then pay our gas prices for the privilege of working in the CoV. The same CoV that has single family density like you'd expect in Surrey. It's a mess, and big solutions like expanding the West Coast Express to all-day service with a few more stations so that suburbs can reliably grow into the valley aren't even being mentioned. One level of government says "$amount of immigration" and it's up to the province (or delegated to municipalities) to try to adapt. Meanwhile the residents of those municipalities resist any changes to density or zoning. And as a result, we get the mess we're in now.

pfannkuchen 3y ago

Feels like some kind of hoarder stressing about all their boxes being filled up with stuff, while at the same time continuing to acquire more stuff. Sure, you can keep buying more boxes forever, but have you considered accumulating less stuff? A reasonable solution probably includes both.

_kst_ 3y ago

I suggest updating the title to say "British Columbia". (I thought it might be Baja California.)

wesleyd 3y ago

While I think this is wonderful, it is surreal that a province more than three times the size of Texas, with a smaller population than metro Houston could have a “housing crisis”.

jrgaston 3y ago
You might want to check your units. BC is a bit bigger than Texas, but not 3x.
- wesleyd 3y ago
  So it isn’t! TY! It’s not even one and a half times the size! Nonetheless, my point stands. Bigger than Texas, a sixth the population, yet a housing crisis. I’m sure there are good reasons - like the Rockies - and managing not to sprawl is commendable, but still: surreal.
  - cf100clunk 3y ago
    The Rockies, yes, but also the Selkirks, Purcells, heck, the entire Pacific Coast Range. Seriously, there is little comparison in the topographies. The amount of B.C. land suited to urban populations is miniscule compared to the over all size of the land mass. The climate is almost diametrically different between Texas and B.C., so there's that too. Entire mountain passes are blocked by snow on a regular basis in winter and require enormous effort to clear. Look for the TV show about the B.C. highway towing truckers and you'll get a feel for what is faced. Building urban centres in such places is impossible. Therefore, your point was, to use your own term, ''surreal'', so my opinion is that for obvious geographical reasons it does not stand.
nucleardog 3y ago
“Housing crisis” is not a function of density, but a function of how much demand outstrips supply. The real question to be asking is why the two have been so far apart for so long as to allow us to get to this point.
- 3y ago

emptybits 3y ago

Our provincial and city governments are shuffling around papers, probably to some benefit, but the Senakw development is most interesting recent change to watch IMO.[1] The Squamish Nation's bet is essentially: economics (demand) should drive development, not legacy urban planning and legacy zoning and bylaws. This is testing an important hypothesis IMO. It's 10 acres of prime downtown real estate in one of the most expensive markets in the world. So if this wasn't self-governed indigenous land, the experiment would never be allowed to happen. A cluster of 11 towers, some over 50 storeys... A good outcome is not guaranteed, so grab your popcorn, Vancouver. My fingers are crossed for them. [1] https://senakw.com/vision https://senakw.com/vision

applied_heat 3y ago
What negative outcomes do you foresee? Surely they will build the first tower, ensure it is adequately utilized, then build the next one etc?
- emptybits 3y ago
  Nimbys in the neighbourhood have their usual negative predictions ... traffic will be worse, parking will be impossible, precious views will be lost, transit will become strained, etc. This is all possible. The latter is, I think, solvable. OTOH, thousands of much-needed rental homes will become available in the center of the city. That positive outcome seems highly likely.

kyboren 3y ago

Bring on the Canadian Khrushchyovka! Or is it Trudovka? Ebyovka?

filoleg 3y ago
Is the last one also referencing someone else’s name that is meaningful (similar to the first two) or was it just a curse-word joke?

SpecialistK 3y ago

I'm shocked by how long it's taken for these steps to be made. Very little has changed since I first came to Vancouver 20 years ago - limited geography (mountains north, ocean west, US border south); desirable location (most moderate climate in the country, stunning natural beauty, closest to Asia); lots of international press as "most livable city"; low density zoning right next to downtown; etc. The issue was not /as/ bad back then, but the "Crack Shack or Mansion?" online quiz, wherein you had to guess if a house was a drug den or a $1,000,000+ property was 13 years ago. Affordability has been an issue for decades. Governments have gone through the steps of limiting foreign ownership of housing and AirBnB, but changing zoning is new. Probably because of NIMBYs and established homeowners not wanting to lose their newfound real estate wealth. However the cost-of-living increases in food prices and interest rates post-pandemic are making affordability the top concern in the country, and the federal government's polling numbers are in the toilet. The provincial BC NDP are very, very popular and have been in power for several years, so I think this is really a sign that the tides are turning IRT polling and popular opinion. Maybe boomer and gen-X homeowners are starting to realize that an extra $500,000 in home value isn't worth your kids staying in the basement into their 30s, an insurmountable gap between wages and housing, or homelessness (there's also the substance debate, which is beyond this news.) There's a brilliant YouTube channel called "About Here" which I highly recommend for those interested in the socioeconomic challenges facing Vancouver. The cruel irony is that a place so commonly lauded as "most livable" has so many issues that make living here difficult.

snapplebobapple 3y ago
Wouldn't the boomer held single family land be worth way more with higher density zoning allowed? Isn't it more like an extra 500k in my pocket and my kids moving out is worth trading the back yard and garage for a slightly smaller apartment/rowhouse and utilizing public parks for what was once done in the backyard, while mostly taking transit/uber?
- SpecialistK 3y ago
  You'd think so, but... - a lot of people (especially those who have owned their homes since the 70s or 80s) probably don't want to rebuild or have a year of construction in their yards as they approach retirement - if everyone turns their single home into 2-4plexes, the supply will meet demand and prices will plummet massively, especially in the outer suburbs like Maple Ridge, Langley, or Tsawwassen that would otherwise be less desirable. Classic game theory. - transit hasn't matched growth and big parts of the region are underserved. Surrey, the largest suburb and soon to have more population than the City of Vancouver, has 4 stations on the SkyTrain system. Vancouver has 20. Burnaby, the next suburb (yet less than half the population of Surrey), has 11. - Both Uber and transit have some issues, like the requirement for commercial drivers licenses to drive for Uber/Lyft (an attempt to moderate the outrage from taxi drivers) and perceived safety issues on transit (my own brother-in-law has been assaulted on the train) It really is the perfect storm of a city that is growing way faster than was ever envisioned; the opioid crisis (related but tangential from this discussion); external influence from "most livable" lists and expatriate investments; high immigration with no limit on where you settle (section 6 of the Charter) making most people go to Vancouver or Toronto; the geography of the area; and the politics of the region being one of the few places in the country where the 3 largest parties all have a chance in many ridings (meaning more promises and concessions made.)