5833 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

One of the smartest people I know says you have to find a way to rise above the impediments.

In regards to housing, I applaud the efforts and the investments people are making with the delivery of housing to the CoV and Saanich. But there are other jurisdictions where their efforts could create more housing in a small fraction of the time they invest in the core.

So the question I have to ask, is more housing the answer to a housing crisis, or is only specific housing in specific locations the answer to the housing crisis?

I mean, in the time it has taken one developer to receive approvals for a 42-unit project on Burdett (six years), the same effort could have delivered over 100-units to Langford within the same time span. Meanwhile the Burdett project is still three years away from occupancy. So by the time it’s done, 42-units of effort in Victoria could have delivered 150-units in Langford (or far more, I mean in nine years the same effort is likely to yield several hundred units from just one developer).

[spanky123]

^ The only problem is that the building in Langford has to be vacated after 3 months due to building code violations!

 

Lots of housing is being built in Victoria, heck BC Housing alone has created hundreds of spaces over the past year (I am referring to affordable housing here). Only problem is that you have to be on the inside to get one of those spots.

Edited by spanky123, 19 October 2021 - 07:47 AM.

[punk cannonballer]

The big issues are lack of regional planning combined with protectionist community associations. We see this being the root cause of sprawl in large American cities like Los Angeles. The ideal would be to have a regional OCP which directs growth to nodes and corridors both serviced by high quality, high volume rapid public transit which is both close to and linked to employment centers. Concentrating growth inside the urban containment boundary should be the goal such that compact development pushes the need to expand that into the future.

 

Instead, we have piecemeal development with well-meaning community members stalling development with the need for extensive community consultation over building height and the retention of 2-3 trees on a site in the name of  'environmental protection'. Meanwhile, this is causing such necessities as the removal of thousands of trees along Sooke Rd to pave the way for the development of the corridor to Renfrew. 

We don't have big picture thinking in mind. How many of those people in Langford are unserviced by public transit? Are they walkable, sustainable, enjoyable communities? Or are they just barracks for the sake of affordability?

Edited by punk cannonballer, 19 October 2021 - 07:50 AM.

[spanky123]

One of the smartest people I know says you have to find a way to rise above the impediments.

 

And the smart and wealthy people are.  People like us could just pocket the money and keep our mouths shut. Many are also smart enough to see the bigger problem that is looming though.

[spanky123]

The big issues are lack of regional planning combined with protectionist community associations.

 

Agreed but I think that the underlying issue is more fundamental than that. Most people who live and own property here are in Victoria because they don't want to live in LA, Delhi or Toronto. They moved here or have stayed here because they like the small town vibe and ease of movement. On the opposite side we have people who move here from LA, Delhi or Toronto and want a larger community but at a fraction of the price. Until you resolve those opposing dynamics or find some compromise then the issue won't go away. 

 

The big irony for me is that population growth is the single biggest driver of GHG emissions yet we embrace it in Victoria. If we were serious about curtailing emissions then why don't we insist on not expanding our footprint and adding emitters?!

Edited by spanky123, 19 October 2021 - 07:57 AM.

[punk cannonballer]

The other issue of course is whether building more housing will solve the affordability issue. I'd say that in Vancouver's case there was a severe underestimation as to the depth of demand for housing in that city. There is certainly a balance between building a city that will end up being very dense and which will erode livability and maintaining the status quo, meaning that housing will be very expensive. Ultimately I believe that, if you want affordable housing it's much better to build a significant amount of purpose-built rental and below-market housing which is commensurate to the economic need projections than to simply rezone and hope. It's a difficult balance to strike, certainly, 

[punk cannonballer]

If we were serious about curtailing emissions then why don't we insist on not expanding our footprint and adding emitters?!

 

Denser cities that are walkable tend to emit far less per capita than those that are more suburban. Generally the threshold for high quality public transit is 15 units per acre. We should definitely curtail sprawl for this reason.

[Mike K.]

^ The only problem is that the building in Langford has to be vacated after 3 months due to building code violations!

 

Lots of housing is being built in Victoria, heck BC Housing alone has created hundreds of spaces over the past year (I am referring to affordable housing here). Only problem is that you have to be on the inside to get one of those spots.

 

Oh geez, spanky. 

 

That joke is three years old and funny 2,500-units ago 

[Mike K.]

Instead, we have piecemeal development with well-meaning community members stalling development with the need for extensive community consultation over building height and the retention of 2-3 trees on a site in the name of  'environmental protection'. Meanwhile, this is causing such necessities as the removal of thousands of trees along Sooke Rd to pave the way for the development of the corridor to Renfrew. 

We don't have big picture thinking in mind. How many of those people in Langford are unserviced by public transit? Are they walkable, sustainable, enjoyable communities? Or are they just barracks for the sake of affordability?

 

Ok, let's back this one up for a moment   

 

Thousands of trees? Maybe two hundred, at the very most. About as many fall each year in that municipality due to wind.

[punk cannonballer]

OK I don't know the number, but it seems a lot in spots...in any case my point stands. The new development enabled by the new infrastructure will remove way more trees than any infill in the core, which undermines the environmental protests of the latter.

Edited by punk cannonballer, 19 October 2021 - 08:43 AM.

[Mike K.]

Denser cities that are walkable tend to emit far less per capita than those that are more suburban. Generally the threshold for high quality public transit is 15 units per acre. We should definitely curtail sprawl for this reason.

 

But on the contrary, high-density buildings are larger polluters, per-capita, than single-family-dwellings.

 

Housing density is also not tethered to walkability. Where we've gone wrong with modern development principles is we've lost a desire to build complete neighbourhoods no matter what the make-up of the neighbourhood is, and consider only high-density neighbourhoods as those suitable for or targeted to commercial services.

 

Back in the 30s and 40s Victoria was building single-family-neighbourhoods with small pockets of commercial spaces to serve the residents, and within walking distance. Remember the 'corner store?' Or the corner coffee shop/bakery/butcher? That was century-old thinking, and it worked.

[spanky123]

Denser cities that are walkable tend to emit far less per capita than those that are more suburban. Generally the threshold for high quality public transit is 15 units per acre. We should definitely curtail sprawl for this reason.

 

Reducing emissions 10% per capita is meaningless if you increase the per capita 20%!

Edited by spanky123, 19 October 2021 - 08:51 AM.

[punk cannonballer]

But on the contrary, high-density buildings are larger polluters, per-capita, than single-family-dwellings.

 

You can't cherry pick one aspect of a development pattern and use that as a reason for opposing it. I don't believe that 40 people living in an apartment building is going to be more impactful than 40 people living in 20 detached residential - gonna need a citation for that one. One must consider the sum total of development impacts. Servicing is more efficient, transit is more affordable...I could go on. It's not the 30s or 40s anymore, and people don't live like that. They used passenger cars far, far less. It's not a valid comparison.

Edited by punk cannonballer, 19 October 2021 - 09:02 AM.

[punk cannonballer]

...but go ahead and oppose all of the current thinking and best practices around compact development being more efficient.

https://frontiergrou...can-cities-grow

[spanky123]

Oh geez, spanky. 

 

That joke is three years old and funny 2,500-units ago 

 

Was funny right up until the Langford taxpayer was drawn into the lawsuit. What is at stake, about $40M?!

[Mike K.]

You can't cherry pick one aspect of a development pattern and use that as a reason for opposing it. I don't believe that 40 people living in an apartment building is going to be more impactful than 15-20 people living in 20 detached residential - gonna need a citation for that one. One must consider the sum total of development impacts. Servicing is more efficient, transit is more affordable...I could go on. It's not the 30s or 40s anymore, and people don't live like that. They used passenger cars far, far less. It's not a valid comparison.

 

I'm not cherry picking, I'm saying the notion that high density is more 'green' in absolute terms is false, and everyone in the industry knows it.

 

High density has its benefits, for sure (tons of benefits), but it's not exactly without its own faults and challenges.

 

GHG emissions, for one, are huge in apartment complexes. Think of all the empty space that is lit and heated 24/7, think of all the ducts drawing air in and out of parkades, think of the elevators, the HVAC units, the heating and cooling required just for the passive spaces (like lobbies and hallways). Now consider how many windows those buildings have compared to houses, and how inefficient it is to heat hundreds of individual units. And that's even before we factor in the construction, with vast sums of concrete, steel, excavation, etc.

[punk cannonballer]

I'm not cherry picking, I'm saying the notion that high density is more 'green' in absolute terms is false, and everyone in the industry knows it.

 

This is incorrect. I can't say it clearer.

[Mike K.]

Was funny right up until the Langford taxpayer was drawn into the lawsuit. What is at stake, about $40M?!

 

Meh, whatever. Victorians were fine when their $60 million bridge turned into a $120 million bridge (still unfinished).

[Mike K.]

This is incorrect. I can't say it clearer.

 

It is absolutely correct, and presents one of the greatest challenges of our time as we embark on more high density development.

[punk cannonballer]

It is absolutely correct, and presents one of the greatest challenges of our time as we embark on more high density development.

And you get this from where? Anecdote from 'everyone in the industry'? Any peer-review backing that up? There are studies that say that in some cases individual cities can be less green because they don't have proper infrastructure. However, all things and building practises being equal, density is more efficient. There will never be a case where sprawl to accommodate the population of somewhere like Manhattan in a suburban land use will be more efficient than the city.