SEE ALSO:
- Report on the April 12th Open House
- Article on the “Art” display at the proposed building site
- cityhallwatch.ca site with poster for upcoming Citizen’s Forum
- http://stopthedevelopers.wordpress.com/
This weekend, I attended a “Community Review Workshop” on the proposed massive hi-rise development aimed at the block at Kingsway and Broadway. Officially, the meeting was designed to elicit community input on the rezoning application for the development company, Rize Alliance. They want the area rezoned in order to justify the building of a large high-rise complex on the site. They’re aiming at a 26 storey tower with 268 dwelling units, surrounded by low-rise units and retail space.
For 5 hours, we (over 200 of us) were treated to presentations from the architects, the city and the development company attempting to justify the project. They tried to argue that the area needs to increase its density in order to serve the hoards moving to the city each year. They prattled on about the “public benefits” of the development, highlighting 9,200 square feet of artist production space incorporated into the project but gave no details on who exactly will be able to access this space and at what cost.
Arguments were made that the design of the proposed development is “iconic” and in keeping with the “spirit of the neighbourhood” but there was no evidence from the artist renditions that there’s any difference between the look and feel of this project and any other recent building on this scale in South Granville, Yaletown or Coal Harbour. There are no buildings near this height in Mount Pleasant and the developers seem to think that by cladding a glass tower with a few strips of faux brick it’s going to fit right in. Most disconcerting was the vision of the future as imagined by the developers. They claim to appreciate and even celebrate the spirit of unique, small independent businesses in the area but their artists conceptions give the game away with the retail space comprised of a Chapters-like bookstore, a Starbucks-like coffee shop, and a Milestones-like restaurant imagined as “the Flatiron”.
Judging from the response from the attendees of this workshop, almost no one came to support the project. There seemed to be almost unanimous agreement that the proposed building is far too high at 26 stories and the design doesn’t fit in. Whether or not this clear feedback will have any effect on the city’s decision to green light this project seems doubtful. The tone of the workshop, and the direction of the official agenda, seemed to suggest that this project was a done deal and that we, the participants, were being asked to comment on the nuances. One exercise was an attempt to get us all to list the “benefits” of the project. An other tried to get us to list what we “appreciate” about the proposal.
We were literally begged by the facilitator at the outset to keep our minds open to new ideas and remain courteous, curious and calm. By hour three, the tediousness of the process was starting to give rise to restlessness. A number of times, a microphone was passed around, ostensibly to discuss the current exercise. Most people went right off topic and brought the discussion back around to the reason most people were there – to show an unequivocal lack of support for a 26 storey tower at Kingsway and Broadway. If the structure of the event was designed to change the conversation, it wasn’t working.
Propagandizing is part of these events and the key manipulation of the day was the way the proposal was presented as the only possible option. The developers suggested that the problem is the area “needs” a project of this density and that their proposal was the best way of achieving that goal. There was no debate about how this “need” was determined. There was absolutely no suggestion that a less dense development with fewer floors was a viable option.
The developers were keen to show us that they were there to answer our questions and concerns and there was some pleasure to be derived from the sight of one of the Rize crew having to answer the question about who set fire to the buildings on the proposed lot a few years ago that resulted in this opportunity for development. We were assured that official inspectors found no suspicion of foul play.
A follow-up open house is planned for April 12 at Heritage Hall. Here we’re to supposed to see the “response” made by the project design team to the workshop feedback. If they were really listening to the overwhelming view at the workshop, they should respond with a new proposal that replaces their 26 storey high rise with a moderate height low-rise. I talked to Community activist Annabel Vaughan. She said there’s no time between now and the next meeting, and probably no will, for the developer to make any wholesale modifications to the original proposal. To keep the pressure on, she said, we need to flood the next meeting with attendees. If you’re concerned about this project, mark down Tuesday April 12 on your calendar.
A 26 story high-rise development is proposed at Broadway and Kingsway
Professional facilitator suggests we keep our minds open
The city assures us that they're listening
The property developer assures us that there was no foul play involved in the fire at the building site
The architect tries to convince us that the proposed building design fits into the spirit of the neighborhood
Developer's vision for Broadway & Watson
Developer's vision for the future for 10th Ave
Developer's vision of the future for 10th & Kingsway
Death by workshop
The proposed development
Feedback from participants
Feedback from participants
Thanks for your report. I hope to be at the next one. This project is not what the community wants or needs. Will help keep the pressure on.
Well written. This sums up the feel of the meeting pretty much bang on! Thanks for writing this.
This is a terrific summary. I was also at the workshop. Like most people there, I welcome density–but not mindlessly. Those at my table felt that Rize had cherry picked language out of the Mount Pleasant community plan. Their diagrams seemed incongruous to the Mount Pleasant history and “spirit” that was trumpeted. It was frustrating that the architects insisted that this “contemporary” tower was an iconic building, yet were only able to articulate that the LOCATION is what’s iconic.
I think that many at the workshop felt that we SHOULD continue to densify this already dense area. We don’t need to do it all in one project, though. And least of all, with cold towers that turn an iconic corner into what may as well be one of a thousand similar corners in any other city in the world. The people who shoed up Sunday were hungry for creative solutions and even eager to experiment. Both Rize and the City have a rare opportunity to work with an open-minded community on truly unique solutions. To go ahead and drop in a tower that’s higher than six stories despite all that was conveyed would significantly cripple my trust in this process.
Hey great post! Thanks for taking the time to write this. We live in the area and do not want to see 26 storeys anywhere in Mt. Pleasant.
I attended the workshop with a few friends that live in the area and we all felt that we were at a sales pitch. Whenever the height was brought up the moderator or whoever was speaking seemed to just direct the conversation away from the height and focus on the retail, art space and need for densification. 95% of the people that were there were there to discuss the height.
There was no public outcry when Soma Lofts, Uno, Stella, Sophia, District and Social went into development, I wonder why? They all built and designed within their surroundings (for the most part) and within the allocated FSR for the area. Rize-Alliance wants to double the allowed Square footage so they can get this eye-sore of of tower built.
Mt.Pleasant is a beautiful neighbourhood and at the early stages of development. There are plenty of sites to build on in the future to help with densification and community projects, we don’t need to cram them all into one building so the developer can make additional income on rental units and market unit.
We all felt the project needs to be half the size and be in line with the character of the neighbourhood, not a glass downtown tower. If this project goes through it will only set a precedent for future development of the area and slowly transform our area into a Downtown Canyon.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for development but at the same time I do not want to see our community destroyed by glass towers.
This summarizes very well what happened last Sunday. We need to more clearly show our opposition of this project (and probably get more media coverage to increase the pressure on the city council).
I don’t think for instance the province’s article truly depicts the mood at the owrkshop
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Higher+density+draws+mixed+reaction/4475622/story.html
Mixed reaction? I though we were pretty unanimous: no high or mid raise in Mount Pleasant!
hi. thanks for writing this. i was unable to attend the workshop but your take was basically the same take my cousin had. im not opposed to new developments but i am opposed to ones of this scale, which at 3 times the height do not fit in with the character of this neighborhood. i also dont want this neighborhood destroyed by generic glass towers and chain stores. i think sharing dialogue about this is great but we have to actively do something to stop it. please pass on the following info to as many people as you can because a lot of people are still unaware about the potential development of this 26 story monstrosity. theres still time to stop it.
YOU CAN:
(1) click on the following link and give online feedback:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/228-246ebway/index.htm
(2) contact:
alison.higginson@vancouver.ca, city planner
mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca
(3) show up to the next OPEN HOUSE:
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011
HERITAGE HALL (3102 Main Street)
4-9 p.m.
unfortunately ill be out of town for the open house but the more people who show up, the better the chance of shutting this down. there could be a public hearing where people can actively voice their opinions as early as june.
ill be papering the neighborhood this week with flyers to raise awareness about the issue.
hey, I reposted one of your images along with a blog entry on the subject:
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/blog/nofutureface/6767
I gave credit & a link, hope that’s ok. Thanks for this great summary.
no problem dawn. i just want to spread the word and stop this.
No problem – spread the word!
FYI: you can give your feedback to the city about this project at this link
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/228-246ebway/feedback.htm
Better yet: here’s a list of all our city councillors http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/mayorcouncil/pdf/2011councillors-factsheet.pdf
Don’t stop at sending one email to “mayorandcouncil” – be sure to send a copy to each member and ask whether they will support your desire to reject this project.
Someone asked Rize (on their blog) the question of how the tower fits into the neighbourhood
http://blog.rize.ca/2011/03/kingsway-broadway-community-workshop-thank-you/#comment-27
to which their response is “…the high massing complements the greater height of development along Kingsway…”
I don’t understand how they think that building something that’s more than twice the height of even the tallest building in that area of Kingsway “complements” existing development? If they truly wanted to build something that fits in why push to change the existing zoning?
They add that the low mass section of their development “addresses the historical height and scale of the Lee Building” yet I think the consensus is that the mammoth glass tower will simply overtake any (relative) feeble attempt to complement and will constitute our new “historical iconic landmark”.
This issue (which I would sum up as too much inappropriate densification crammed into one block) motivated me (someone who before this has never been particularly civically minded) to give up an entire sunny Sunday afternoon to attend the March 20th meeting. I didn’t know what kinds of other people I would encounter and was pleasantly surprised by the wide range of intelligent, creative and thoughtful local residents I met (artists, administators, realtors, architects, designers, lawyers, advocates, teachers, homemakers, small business owners, non-profit, retail, retired, low income, students).
I disagree that feedback to the City will not have any effect on their decision to green light this project. THERE’S A CIVIC ELECTION COMING UP AND I’VE LEARNED THAT 30% OF VISION’S VOTE CAME FROM MT PLEASANT. And I know there are many people from all over the city who come to Mt Pleasant to eat, drink, and shop because they value its uniqueness (ie. no glass towers anywhere) so I think once they get wind of this plan they won’t hesitate to agree that this attempt to overshawdow the heart & soul of Vancouver (the geographical centre of the city and one of our oldest heritage areas) with a glass skycraper is all wrong. I think if the current City administration wants to keep their jobs they’ll have to reject this.
I agree with the suggestion to not stop at sending just one email – make sure every councillor hears from you and demand an answer from them.
I too was at the meeting and this is an accurate summary. I also read the 30 page Mt Pleasant Community Plan that the City sent me and noticed that the developer Rize’s name is mentioned several times. But no other specific developers are named (yet Rize is hardly the only one in Mt Pleasant). Why are they there?
I talked to members of the community planning committee at the meeting about this who said they too were surprised to see Rize’s name in the document – and also shocked by the height of the proposed “hi-rise” they were expecting to see on this lot (which should be 12-storeys max for Mt Pleasant). The things that make you go hmm…
Here’s some interesting discussion on the issue from a group of urban designers
http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/civilized-crowd-says-we-welcome-density-but-not-26-storey-tower/
I’m a 20 year resident of uptown Mt Pleasant (who attended the March 20 meeting) and I think the idea of two shorter towers and an open public space would be a great alternative (to the two stark alternatives shown at the meeting ie. either one very tall or one very stout). It would be so nice to have some outdoor public place (other than the sidewalk in front of coffee shops) in the uptown area to sit in. Forget expensive rental units – we need an area with some greenery overhead, maybe even some running water (am I asking for too much?), room for some food carts and buskers etc.
I think a beautiful public space that connects to the probable future transit plaza at Main & Broadway could serve as the ‘landmark’ we need to define the centre of the city.
Re David #13 comment on Bula’s article (and others who don’t think added height along Kingsway should be an issue)
I live in Mount Pleasant and shop along Main St and I’m not concerned about the current developments on Kingsway because they’re not high enough to be seen from Main. The hi-rise at 12th & Kingsway, for instance, is only 12 floors. If a 26-storey glass tower is built at 10th & Kingsway we’ll be looking up, up, waaay up at it from Main. The Mt Pleasant Community Plan calls for contemporary design to “fit in” and “complement” the look and feel of historical Main St – not compete or distract from it.
If I shouldn’t question the height or look & feel of the tower (as some seem to be implying) then why would we bother developing a community plan? I wasn’t one of the contributing members but obviously a lot of thoughtful work went into it.
here’s a site outlining things you can do to stop this development + a poster to print out and distribute. http://stopthedevelopers.wordpress.com
Thank you for posting this! This is a total disgrace… it is typical formulaic build-for-profit cookie cutter architecture we see all over Vancouver and it is very sad that the City is allowing the developers to bring it to Mount Pleasant now. Or that they are allowing themselves to be bribed with $$$? Even sadder is how they are not even listening to the public whatsoever AND how our city planners have a complete disregard for our beautiful mountainous skyline… I mean do they not see the mountains?? I just don’t get it.
And why don’t our cheap local developers hire any great architects? Why does every building have to look identical and be a massive high rise?!?!
I will be there April 12th will bells on.
I heard that sending a letter counts for something like 300-400 voices – so send letters in to government as it is much more effective than emails.
P.S. I should take that comment back about developer’s needing to hire great architects in Vancouver. I think Acton Ostry have done some beautiful heritage conversion buildings in this City and some great community centers and buildings as well in BC. What I should have said was: How come our architects continue to design these residential, what I call, “developer architecture” high rise glass buildings in this City? Why can’t they incorporate more of the existing heritage buildings or design with more of Main St tradition in mind?
In case you haven’t seen enough, here’s another one with lots of commentary on the sad politics going on (particularly starting after comment #31)
http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/massive-project-26-storey-tower-at-broadwaykingsway-will-remake-soma/
This project is not what community activists want. Most people in Mt.Pleasant are unaware of this project.
Keep in mind that if the project is scaled back, it will be at the cost of the 62 rental units that the neighborhood badly needs.
I think people should be more concerned with the number of market condos being introduced to the neighborhood, and the lack of rental units. The life blood of this neighborhood are the 3 story walk-ups and the people who reside in them.
came back from the “open house” tonight, had an in depth conversation with Mark Ostry, one of the principle Architect of the Acton Ostry. He sure is quick to deflect and defend the project, why would he not, he has a vested monetary interest. Anyway, they down graded the “tower” from 26 to 19 stories, yet also reduced the low massing structures one floor. When addressing the rational of including the reduction of the low mass structure as part of the total equation of reducing the FSR vs the tower alone it was done for scale purposes only. Further dialog with him suggested that the cost multiplier is with the tower, as with each additional floor they can replicate during construction it provides lower costs vis-a-vis more dollars to the developer.
yes, William Lin the developer may loose some money in this investment as he is trying to feed off on what the community of Mount Pleasant has built up to make this place what it is. So where was he to defend his project? He did send out many of his staff to defend the project.
i am sure that the bulk of the residents are not too happy with the reworked plans and they really need rethink this whole project.
Thanks to wisemonkeys for having this space
I was at the community meeting yesterday as well. The reduction in tower height is not enough. The Mount Pleasant Community Plan may be unfortunately vague with respect to that particular site, but indisputably sets out the one core desire of Mount Pleasant residents: to retain the scale and character of the existing neighbourhood. The vagueness of the Plan with respect to this city block MUST be interpreted with respect to the tone of the rest of the report. This project, even in its revised form, does NOT retain the scale and character of Mount Pleasant. This project is too tall, incorporates design features more appropriately situated in Coal Harbour or Yaletown, and does not respect the clearly articulated desires of the neighbourhood residents.
There is still an opportunity to voice your concerns. Comment forms are available online:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/228-246ebway/index.htm.
As well, there will be a Public Hearing before city council, who still has to approve this project. I was told yesterday that city council can reject the project with recommendations, such as to reduce overall height, and send the project back to the drawing board.
Here are some pictures of poster-boards from the meeting yesterday portraying the overwhelming opposition to the project voiced at the previous March meeting:
http://ow.ly/i/aiiN
http://ow.ly/i/aiiS
Thanks for the interesting discussion, WiseMonkeys.
Here’s a report from the April 12 Open House
http://www.wisemonkeysblog.com/archives/2777
please note note the following info:
“You are cordially invited to attend any of these two follow up meetings to last week’s Forum on the Kingsway/Broadway rezoning proposal:
May 4th, 7-9pm (Mt.Pleasant Community Centre, Art Room / Ground Floor first room to left from entrance off 8th)
May 11th, 7-8:30pm (Rhizome Cafe, Community Meeting Room, on Broadway east of Scotia Street)
The purpose of the meetings is to organize, brainstorm, and work on strategies on spreading the message of the community’s opposition to the proposed highrise block development at Kingsway and Broadway. There were numerous suggestions made during the forum and this will be an opportunity to follow up on these ideas.
If you have any suggestions, please come to one of the meeting or send me an email. Hope to see you on Wednesday.”
Sincerely,
Stephen Bohus
more details to follow on CityHallWatch.ca
hope to see u there and spread the word. thanks. sandY
Please sign the petition! RAMP=Residents Assoc for Mt Pleasant
http://www.rampvancouver.com/item/21/take-action/
we have a petition in hard copy as well. there will be a RAMP table set up on car free day btwn 13th and 14th so please swing by and sign the petition. tell all ur friends!!! also, please sign up to speak at the public hearing TBA (but probs sometime in july). pledging to speak is REALLY IMPORTANT!
for more info, go to: http://www.rampvancouver.com
For anyone who might not be aware, the Main St Car Free Day festival will be held on Sunday, June 19th from noon-8pm.
http://www.carfreevancouver.org/locations/main-street/
Great idea to have a RAMP table!
hi all,
RAMP (residents association mount pleasant) is holding a town hall meeting re: the proposed 19 story hi-rise at kingsway and broadway. we are opposed to this proposal. we are not against density or development. but we are for density done well and a development which respects a community and its community plan.
date: wed, june 29th/2011
time: 7-9 pm
place: st. patrick’s parish hall at main and 13th (2881 main st.)
we want to clear up any misconceptions and keep residents up to date on the proposal. this town hall is open to anyone. we will begin with a few brief presentations and then open the floor up for discussion. have a say in shaping the future of ur community.
a city starts with a community. we aim to keep ours alive.
check out our website: http://www.rampvancouver.com
sandY
Funny, here’s what the community actually said about the site in the Mount Pleasant Community Plan:
“the Mount Pleasant community also sees opportunities for some high-rise as well as mid-rise development in some specific locations, such as for large sites (i.e. Kingsgate Mall, IGA site, and Broadway, Kingsway, Watson Street, and 10th Avenue site)”
Vancouver needs a lot more housing near public transit, not less. I can’t believe you people are protesting new housing near transit for mostly aesthetic reasons.
Another quote from the plan: “Honour the local preference for a ‘high-low massing rhythm’ across the hill town, but with modest height as the norm: mostly low to mid-rise buildings…”
There is more to the resistance to this development than aesthetics – there are NO highrises in the area currently so it will stick out like a sore thumb and set a precedent for more ugly developments , traffic will increase, retail and residential rents will increase. High rises are horrific energy wasters, and they’re soulless and lacking in any community cohesion. Europe has largely given up on this mode of housing; density can be achieved without towers.
Your contention that highrises are “soulless and lacking in any community cohesion” is totally subjective – not to mention at odds with real urban communities. Is the West End soulless and devoid of community? Is all of Manhattan?
“retail and residential rents will increase.”
This is totally at odds with your other arguments. Rents would DROP if this development actually made the neighbourhood less liveable while putting lots of units on the market. You’re saying this development will make the neighbourhood much worse, and yet somehow people will be willing to pay more to live here if it’s built?
Condo buyers who can’t buy into this project are just going to bid up prices on other housing in Vancouver – do you really want to limit housing supply in a city this expensive?
Well, i think many people would agree that the streets of towers in Yaletown amounts to a very soulless feel. The west end is less dense with towers side by side but there are groups fighting to stem too many tower blocks there. This whole conversation is “subjective” – this is all about opinion, opinion about what kind of city and neighbourhood you want to live in. Take a look at Kitsilano if you want to see how gentrification affects a community. Independent business have pretty well disappeared thanks for increased rents and increased overall property values. Corporate brands dominate the main streets – feels like a mall. There are many myths circulating by developers and interested parties about how high rises are necessary for the influx of population predicted to arrive here. Meanwhile, take a look at the empty, unsold condos at the Olympic village development and notice how the newly minted developments over town are not selling like hotcakes. Vancouver, unfortunately, relies upon ceaseless development for its economic well-being and it must sell us myths about density and the inevitability of development in order to justify its goals. Do a bit of research and you won’t find any shortage of evidence that development tends to displace existing communities, clearing the way for an influx of the affluent, who lay claim to neighbourhoods like colonists.
“Take a look at Kitsilano if you want to see how gentrification affects a community.”
Kits became gentrified almost entirely without highrises and new dense development, so it’s odd that you bring it up. It’s still filled with single-family houses and old 3 storey apartments.
“There are many myths circulating by developers and interested parties about how high rises are necessary for the influx of population predicted to arrive here. Meanwhile, take a look at the empty, unsold condos at the Olympic village development and notice how the newly minted developments over town are not selling like hotcakes.”
Let’s say you’re right, new condos won’t sell at current market prices. So what? Extra supply on the market puts downward pressure on prices – and those are sky-high.
“Do a bit of research and you won’t find any shortage of evidence that development tends to displace existing communities, clearing the way for an influx of the affluent, who lay claim to neighbourhoods like colonists.”
This just hasn’t been the case in Vancouver – as mentioned before, Kits became very gentrified without any significant development. The West End underwent tons of new tower construction in the 1960s and 1970s, and those are largely middle-income housing now.
You’re making dense residential housing near transit significantly scarcer than it would be otherwise. Please reconsider the long-term effects of this policy.
Not really interested in supporting a massive hi rise development in the off chance that it will fail and thereby drive prices down. Now matter how it begins, gentrification drives people out of neighbourhoods and is for the sole benefit of those who can afford the new, inflated real estate prices. The need for high density is not a fact; it’s the fantasy of developers who need to justify their projects. These developments are not some kind of benevolent social project designed to help the city adjust to it’s growing population. They’re all about speculation, greed, and bland homogenization. Studio condos are already going for $400k in Mount Pleasant, so the horse has bolted. Don’t really feel like feeding it any more hay. I see the new breed of property owning class moving into the neighbourhood and these are not average working people – they’re fashionable, well heeled and entitled. All the talk about density is really talk about providing chic housing for the rich, not so called “affordable housing” for average people, who get displaced from their communities by high rents and real estate prices. Seriously doubt there’s much transit use going on with the new breed of residents in Mount Pleasant, who whip around in their Mini Coopers and Vespas on their way to trendy eateries and spa treatments.
“These developments are not some kind of benevolent social project designed to help the city adjust to it’s growing population. They’re all about speculation, greed, and bland homogenization.”
Just like farmers don’t sell me wheat as part of a benevolent social project – they do so out of self-interest. Again, it doesn’t matter what the motivation behind them is – they add more housing to the market.
The rich are going to be able to afford the best housing in Vancouver, whether you prevent this development or not. Would you prefer that they buy into this project, or that they bid up the price on other housing?
The suburbs have grown much more quickly than Vancouver in the last decade (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/06/21/DenseVancouver/), despite significantly higher prices in Vancouver indicating that most people would rather live here. How do you reconcile that with your belief that we don’t actually need to allow more housing here?
If I made a list of good anti-poverty policies without significant side effects, “prevent new market housing from being built near transit” might not be near the top of that list. Just saying.
While it’s true that the rich can afford the best housing in Vancouver, it doesn’t mean we have to help them lay claim to every neighbourhood within reach of the downtown core by adding housing that is out of reach to the average buyer, who are forced to live in the cheaper suburbs. Transit is very much a class-based mode of travel. People who can afford cars tend to have them regardless of how close to transit they are. Is it possible that some people actually prefer living in the suburbs, with larger homes, yards, and established communities, rather than settling for a 500 square foot condo downtown? Could this account for the slower growth rate of Vancouver city? The utopian vision presented by pro-density, pro-development lobby is a strange one: everyone lives in a tiny, expensive condo close to downtown and suddenly wants to take transit because it’s there.
“it doesn’t mean we have to help them lay claim to every neighbourhood within reach of the downtown core…”
Limits on housing supply do exactly this – when there’s a limited supply of a valuable good, it goes to the rich.
“Is it possible that some people actually prefer living in the suburbs, with larger homes, yards, and established communities, rather than settling for a 500 square foot condo downtown?”
Oh, absolutely. But:
1) The higher prices in Vancouver indicate that housing would be built here before being built in the suburbs if it were allowed. It doesn’t cost any more to build an extra floor of apartments in Vancouver than it does in Surrey, but you can sell it for more here – and as I’m sure you agree, developers are profit-maximizing.
2) The significantly higher prices for all types of housing in Vancouver indicate that most people would rather live here than in the suburbs.
“People who can afford cars tend to have them regardless of how close to transit they are.”
But they (and especially their children and dependents) will drive less when living near transit and a walkable neighbourhood – and that’s what matters. I know a lot of well-off individuals in Vancouver who own cars but commute by transit – better for the planet than if they lived in Surrey and drove everywhere.
As an aside because I’m curious: if the price of wheat was twice the marginal cost of producing it, would you want farmers to grow less or more of it?
Higher prices in vancouver do not indicate a mass preference for living in the city; they indicate that some people, a minority, are willing to pay a premium to live in town. This is the case in most cities. The fact that developers can maximize profits by building high-rises is exactly the problem – the motivation is profit rather than concerns about how communities are built, how expensive real estate creates exclusive enclaves for the wealthy. You dream that more development will dampen prices but this has not proved to be the case so far and would not be in the interest of profit motivated developers and the City which greatly benefits from higher property taxes. Rich urbanites taking buses will do little to compensate for the energy wasted building and maintaining hi rise developments. No matter what the price or profit on wheat is, I’d like to see farmers catering to real demand rather that creating an artificial market to increase their profits. Here again is the problem: when the world is judged using economics as the primary scale we give license to those with capital to do what they like as long as there are profits to be made. Pro density, supposedly environmentally concerned activists are doing the bidding of developers, helping them rationalize their greed in the name of saving the planet. I think we can cater to the housing needs in Vancouver without resorting to building hi rises, a technology that much of the world has abandoned. The Tyee article that you have cited (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/06/21/DenseVancouver/) suggests that density can be achieved without radically changing the characteristics of Vancouver’s residential neighbourhoods using European techniques like row housing, mansion blocks, duplexes, brownstones etc. We need to show more imagination here rather than basing decisions on maximizing profits for developers and supporting their plans to overload the city with towers.
“Higher prices in vancouver do not indicate a mass preference for living in the city”
The issue isn’t that prices are slightly higher in Vancouver than the suburbs – the issue is that prices are well above the marginal cost of building new housing.
1) Compare the sale prices of new concrete Vancouver condos (check MLS listings, etc – it’s usually around $600 psf) to the cost of constructing new tall concrete condos in Vancouver (RSMeans has a free calculator – it’s around $300-$350 psf).
2) Take any introductory econ course where you’ll learn that a profit-maximizing firm will supply a good until marginal costs approach marginal revenue.
3) Realize that whenever you (and a million other NIMBYs in Vancouver) oppose new development, you’re the ones limiting supply and keeping prices well above the marginal cost of building new housing.
And yes, this is a standard model used by urban economists – look into Ed Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko’s work for more on it.
“You dream that more development will dampen prices but this has not proved to be the case so far”
You think Vancouver would be cheaper if we had prevented towers from going up in Yaletown and Coal Harbour, making those wealthy individuals bid up the pricing on other housing?
“Rich urbanites taking buses will do little to compensate for the energy wasted building and maintaining hi rise developments.”
This would be more convincing if you had any numbers to back it up.
In reality, Manhattanites use very little energy compared to the rest of the USA – the efficiency losses from building tall are dwarfed by reduced transportation costs. Also, the efficiency gap between low and high rise buildings has narrowed significantly lately: http://www.planetizen.com/node/51164
I’m all for more European-style density in addition to towers, but 1) good luck rezoning the SFH parts of Vancouver for anything like that 2) this is a transit hub!
Yes, the wisdom of economists is what got us the current global financial crisis, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t take their “theories” as items of faith. Again, your obsession with numbers sidesteps the overarching point I’ve been trying to make – which is the impact that development has on communities, how elites colonize neighbourhoods, displacing others. NIMBY is a meaningless term like “liberal” or “fascist” and is just a way of trying to trivialize a position. I think it’s legitimate to be concerned about how the community around you is shaping up – you could argue it’s your civic duty to participate in your locale. Calling people who aren’t satisfied with local developments names because they don’t agree with building proposals is not a great way to get a conversation started and suggests that you aren’t really listening. You’re clearly in favour of development and dense hi rise development at that. You seem to believe in the wisdom of market forces and you manage to frame yourself as environmentally conscious because you think that everyone’s idea of the good life is the same as yours – to live in a small expensive dwelling in the middle of the city and take transit or bike everywhere. I think we’re going to to have to agree to differ on all this. Can’t really see this discussion progressing.
hi all. there will be a candidates debate held on wed. oct. 26/2011 at the Heritage Hall (main and 15th) from 6.45-9.30 pm. the broad focus will be city planning issues affecting communities across vancouver. there will be time for a Q&A session after the debate so come get informed, ask questions, and have your say in the upcoming civic election!!!
Hi,
There will be a letter writing night @ St. Patrick’s Church (2881 Main St.), basically Main and 13th, on Wed. Jan. 25/2012 from 6-8.30 pm. Feel free to drop-in to get info regarding the redevelopment proposal for the 19 story hi-rise at Kingsway and Broadway and to write letters to City Council to reject the application in its current state.
Thanks.
Hi all,
LAST CALL TO ACTION! VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION!
9 days until the Public Hearing for the 19-storey RIZE tower rezoning @ Kingsway & Broadway. It is imperative to sign up to speak. Spead the word!!!
When: Feb. 27, 2012 @ 7.30 pm
Where: City Hall (453 W 12 Ave)
How:
(1) Email: publichearing@vancouver.ca
(2) Call: City Clerks Office- 604.873.7276/ Public Hearing Line- 604.829.4238
For more info, go to: http://www.rampvancouver.com