23 replies to this topic

[amor de cosmos]

this is on right now & it's wicked. Check it out if you can:

RADIANT CITY
Sunday April 6 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld

Genie Award-winning Radiant City offers an entertaining look at life in suburbia.

While Evan Moss zones out in commuter traffic, Ann toils away in her dream kitchen and the kids play sinister games amidst the fresh foundations of monster houses. Developers call it big business, but the Moss family call it home. Welcome to the neighbourhood and welcome to Radiant City - an entertaining and startling look at 21st century suburbanites and suburban sprawl.

Venturing into territory both familiar and foreign, Radiant City is a vivid account of life in The Late Suburban Age, where urban sprawl is eating up the planet. Across the continent the landscape is being levelled and blasted clean of distinctive features. An array of cultural prophets provide insight on the spectacle that is suburbia: author James Howard Kunstler speaks out against the brutalizing aesthetic of strip malls, philosopher Joseph Heath fears the soul-eating "burbs", although admits they offer good value for money, and urban planner Beverly Sandalack dares to ask, "why can't we walk anywhere anymore?"

Through a variety of cultural references, from Jane Jacobs to The Sopranos, Radiant City creates a provocative reflection on why we live the way we do. The theatrical version of the film recently won a Genie for Best Canadian Documentary.

Radiant City is written and directed by Gary Burns and Jim Brown. It was produced by Burns Films in co-production with the National Film Board of Canada in association in CBC Television.

http://www.cbc.ca/pa...ure_060408.html

Too bad it's not available online like the 5th estate.

[Holden West]

Oh, cool. Thanks for that.

[G-Man]

Yup it was good but depressing.

[Nparker]

It repeats at 10:00 PM for anyone (like I did) who missed it the first time.

[D.L.]

yup it was pretty good.

[Mike K.]

Was anyone else bothered by the fact the family's role was scripted? They were portrayed as extremely shallow, materialistic and unstable. I suppose its everything we "expect" to find in the suburbs but life on the urban fringe is not necessarily as emotionally and psychologically devastating as was portrayed, and certainly no more so than it is elsewhere in the city.

The only worthwhile segments, IMO, were the cuts of the profs and researchers discussing suburban architecture and lifestyle choices. One of them hit the nail on the head when he said that people are not coerced to move to the burbs nor are they victims of marketing, but rather they're after what they can't get (or can't afford) in the city: cheaper land; more house for the money; new house; lower-density, less urban neighbourhood.

The comment about higher density housing being removed from the SFD's (to create a barrier between the haves (SFD dwellers) and have-nots (high-density dwellers)) was good, and so too was the mention of an unwritten clause in each contract that necessitates each household to have one car per adult. Pown3d.

[Nparker]

I tend to agree with your comments Mike K. Overall I enjoyed the program, but I was also a bit unsure about the scripted parts - although I'd love to see "Suburb: The Musical" performed locally (if someone would write a full script). Perhaps at the Bear Mountain Performing Arts Centre and Auto Body Shop (as sponsored by Midas).

I would have enjoyed hearing more about the "New Urbanism". Although I am all for re-examining the lifestyle of suburbia, I think it is going to take more than some vague premonitions of an "energy poor future" to change the suburban-sprawl mindset. Clearly there is much demand for this type of environment from the masses. How do we go about promoting the benefits of denser, urban living, since currently the suburban model proves so much more popular?

The other concept brought up in this program was the notion that we are at the end of the suburban life cycle. While I agree that we SHOULD be at the end, I see no evidence to support this in most of the city planning throughout North America. It seems that as long as there is empty land on which to sprawl, no matter how long the commutes may be, no matter how dead these suburban "communities" are, there seems to be little appetite to make significant changes.

If, in fact, as the program stated, we are at the end of suburbia as the "be all and end all" lifestyle choice, and these vast wastelands of "pod" communities do not have the ability to "evolve" naturally as urban centres do, what is to become of them? Will they be demolished over time and redeveloped as "wilderness" around denser urban cores? Will they simply be abandoned as residents return to the cities andleft as monuments to poorly conceived 20th century lifestyle designed around the automobile? What happens to this vast, sprawling infrastructure should the "new urbanism" really take hold (as I believe it must)? It would be interesting to visit the "Copperfields", "Castlewoods" and Bear Mountains of a century or so hence and see just how they did or did not evolve. Perhaps I can have myself cryogenically preserved with explicit instructions to be thawed out when we have resolved the issues of suburbia.

[jklymak]

^ Basically that scenario was predicted in last month's Atlantic. The repossessed McMansions become the new slums for people too disadvantaged to live in the inner core.

I think many metro areas are at the saturation for how far people are willing to drive. The NE US, Bay area, greater Seattle, LA, are all at 1.5 hrs each way for cheap empty land. I'd say Vancouver is getting there too, aided by relatively restrictive highway system.

How do you get people to stay in the city? I'd still love to see condo developments where the floor plans are not made for DINKs or singles. Despite what some have said here when I last mentioned this, I don't think most people are willing to raise kids in 850 sqft. Encouraging bigger floorplans would make centralized living possible for families. Whether they will buy it or not is another issue.

[gumgum]

^You're right on jklymak. That is a big problem. I would like to see more 3 bedroom condos - the minimum I'd be willing to consider, being married with a kid, and thinking down the line of at least one more kid.
Family oriented condo buildings could be another niche for the market in Victoria as well as other larger cities. For parents that don't want to give up urban, condo living, but simply couldn't deal with the space offered in most conventional condos.
I imagine the possibility of a building with 3 beds, some with dens, with more spacious balconies. The roof or of the floors could house a common playground. Who knows, maybe a strata daycare or simply a daycare that's open to the neighbourhood.
It wouldn't be a cheap, but it would be providing a need, I'm sure.

[G-Man]

^ I am a big believer in creating livable units in the urban core. I think that there are ways that the city could be doing this thought density bonus. Where you could mandate a certain portion of buildings contain 1000 sq ft units in return for an increase in allowable density.

Also the city could do a lot by reducing the parking requirement of each building from the current .66 spots per unit to .5 thus lessoning the potential cost of excavation.

Also encouraging ground floor townhouses where appropriate and also allowing the rezoning of some SFD neighbourhoods to additional townhouse projects.

Currently though if you want a decent sized unit in a MFD it costs more than buying a house which is just plain wrong. Especially because you have to throw in Strata fees into the montly calculation.

[Nparker]

I agree with both gumgum and jklymak in regards to the need for larger, family-oriented condos to lure people back from the suburbs (although I suspect larger home size is just ONE issue for the appeal of suburbia). The question is, are developers willing to invest in this extra cost on the CHANCE that larger condo units will attract a currently untapped market? It's asking a lot on pure speculation. I suppose some developer is going to have to take the chance and be successful in order to start a trend.

[G-Man]

I don't know townhouses in the core seem to sell at a good clip if you compare to the smaller condos though this might just be because there are more condos to choose from.

In vancouver the choice to move families downtown has been made despite the small size of units with many people choosing to squeeze into 600 - 800 sq ft units. I have also heard that this is much more common for immigrant families who are accustomed to smaller units. Since we are not a very diverse city in Victoria perhaps that is why the drive downtown has seen to be less.

[Mike K.]

Until we see 10:1 zoning we can forget about these larger units. The margins in condo developments in the core are already so thin that decreasing the amount of units in order to increase suite size would be a deal breaker for financiers.

Right now a cheap two-bedroom+den unit in new condos will sell for between $500,000 and $600,000. You can buy a beautiful house within the core neighbourhoods of this city for $550,000. So there's really no business case to go after a condo for a family unless you're completely disinterested SFDs or rowhouses/townhomes.

[jklymak]

The question is, are developers willing to invest in this extra cost on the CHANCE that larger condo units will attract a currently untapped market?

Good question. I would guess not, but as Gman suggests, they could be encouraged with density of tax-break incentives if it is considered desirable to encourage families to live downtown. My guess is, however, that many would consider the idea so beyond the pale that it wouldn't receive a lot of support...

On the other hand, if the City of Vic wants to discourage urban sprawl, this is a practical way they could do it. They can't tell Langford or Central Saanich how to build, except via the CRD, but they can attract some of their customers.

I live in the Wave with 103 units. There is one child in the building living with a single dad. I was in Sutton East (40 units, all over 1000 sq ft) and there were two kids there with their mom. I think 1000 sqft is the minimum. 1500 would be much more realistic. Of course at current prices that would be about $550-650k (depending on view etc), but that's not much worse than a SFH.

[jklymak]

Until we see 10:1 zoning we can forget about these larger units. The margins in condo developments in the core are already so thin that decreasing the amount of units in order to increase suite size would be a deal breaker for financiers.

Right now a cheap two-bedroom+den unit in new condos will sell for between $500,000 and $600,000. You can buy a beautiful house within the core neighbourhoods of this city for $550,000. So there's really no business case to go after a condo for a family unless you're completely disinterested SFDs or rowhouses/townhomes.

Can you lay out the costs for a $500k apartment? We got our insurance coverage for our building, and replacement cost was about $120k per unit. Our BC Assessment said the same thing. Where does the rest go? Was the land that expensive?

I'm just curious about the rough numbers here. I really have no idea why condos are so expensive....

[G-Man]

There was an article in Monday this week that had some interesting stats. First that average cost for steel and concrete residential is about 350 a sqft. It also suggested that a developers are bringing in about 40 - 50k a unit or about 8-12 % if that is based on the average condo prices. So one would assume that the rest of the cost would be land prices taxes and build costs.

[Mike K.]

Where did Monday pull those stats from, in particular the profit stats?

Seems odd that the City can't get developers to provide proformas but Monday Mag has somehow figured out a nice blanket amount for the entire industry.

[G-Man]

Not sure. I know they quoted a Trieagle rep but not sure if that is where those stats came from.

This artcle was specifically about why developers can't afford to build rentals but the stat should still apply. Either way 8-12 % profit is not the massive amount everyone seems to scream about.

[jklymak]

What is the price of land downtown?

[Caramia]

At the DV2020 conference a few years ago, various industry leaders were asked to talk about ways that other cities have managed to attract families downtown.

One of the best ideas I heard was the idea of condos with "mortgage helper" suites. So basically you have your one or two bedroom condo, with living room, kitchen, bathroom etc. Then there is a second unit with its own bathroom, bedroom and area which is wired and plumbed for a kitchenette. The second unit is connected to the first with a door that can be closed and locked, and has its own door to the hallway. The flexibility this creates allows a young person to buy a condo, rent out the main part, and live in the suite in order to help with the mortgage, then get married, move into the main part, and rent out the suite until baby number two comes along at which point the locked door can be opened and the condo becomes bigger. Once baby number one becomes a teen and needs more space, they might choose to reinstall the kitchenette and re-lock the dividing door. After the kids leave home, the suite can be re-rented, and when spouse dies, the now-elderly condo owner might move back into the suite, and rent out the main portion to provide an income.