3521 replies to this topic

[lanforod]

No that’s not possible in a free society. I watched Santa Barbara though in the late 70’s restrict development in order to curb overcrowding.

Development should be planned carefully not haphazardly just because there is a strong demand doesn’t mean there should be a requirement to supply.

 

That's basically against the whole argument for housing. 

[dasmo]

In Vancouver the bottom is basically $2000 for a 500sqft apartment. The empirical evidence says that demand only increases with supply and affordability decreases. There should be a slow down an think moment here.

[Sparky]

^^ Yes strategic planning coupled with appropriate infrastructure instead of knee jerk reaction.

[dasmo]

Exactly. But it’s not reactionary. How can it be when it’s the exact plan every other city enacting right now? We need a localized strategy based on our specific situation. We don’t need a strategy hatched up by billionaire think tanks.

[max.bravo]

If you want to solve the affordability crisis AND make Victoria the most interesting city in the Western world, simply remove all zoning restrictions and building codes.

 

Economic conditions are ripe for massive grassroots development -- I would personally add a few tiny homes to my land, a couple goats, and maybe even convert the front of my house into a neighborhood corner store or coffee shop. 

 

Government/academic controls on planning&zoning is the worst thing to happen to cities since... ever. All the urban places we love to visit in the world are interesting because they had no zoning or building codes. Everywhere that's been planned and zoned is a crappy expensive boring mess. 

 

Make property rights real, get government and academic planning nerds out of the picture, and see what happens. 

 

edit- maybe give every landowner a free copy of Christopher Alexander's trilogy before undertaking this experiment.. 

Edited by max.bravo, 28 October 2022 - 08:54 AM.

[Nparker]

...All the urban places we love to visit in the world are interesting because they had no zoning or building codes ..

Or you get Langford pre-1992. 

[lanforod]

If you want to solve the affordability crisis AND make Victoria the most interesting city in the Western world, simply remove all zoning restrictions and building codes.

 

Economic conditions are ripe for massive grassroots development -- I would personally add a few tiny homes to my land, a couple goats, and maybe even convert the front of my house into a neighborhood corner store or coffee shop. 

 

Government/academic controls on planning&zoning is the worst thing to happen to cities since... ever. All the urban places we love to visit in the world are interesting because they had no zoning or building codes. Everywhere that's been planned and zoned is a crappy expensive boring mess. 

 

Make property rights real, get government and academic planning nerds out of the picture, and see what happens. 

 

edit- maybe give every landowner a free copy of Christopher Alexander's trilogy before undertaking this experiment.. 

 

Would you really? Really?

[max.bravo]

Yup

[Sparky]

[dasmo]

haha. I love that pic. 

 

Most cities that I have been to that are great are old. Planned without question. But planned well and mostly preserved to that original plan. Amsterdam is a great example. Some actually restoring the original plans Like Arhus.  Planning isn't the problem IMO. Nor is a community having some form of governance. But... That should be for the benefit of the community not special interests. 

Edited by dasmo, 28 October 2022 - 09:59 AM.

[Matt R.]

No that’s not possible in a free society. I watched Santa Barbara though in the late 70’s restrict development in order to curb overcrowding.

Development should be planned carefully not haphazardly just because there is a strong demand doesn’t mean there should be a requirement to supply.

Do you work for the Islands Trust on the side?

[max.bravo]

re: Sparky's picture above - that would only happen where it needs to happen. ie., a huge concentration of landowners who want to add that much density, and a demand for housing in that immediate area.

 

the beauty of removing zoning in the region we already have is sure, you might end up with that type of density in parts of James Bay, where it actually makes a ton of sense. But in rural Saanich, or out my way near Brentwood Bay you'd get pockets of activity only where people want it. 

Edited by max.bravo, 28 October 2022 - 11:54 AM.

[Ismo07]

re: Sparky's picture above - that would only happen where it needs to happen. ie., a huge concentration of landowners who want to add that much density, and a demand for housing in that immediate area.

 

the beauty of removing zoning in the region we already have is sure, you might end up with that type of density in parts of James Bay, where it actually makes a ton of sense. But in rural Saanich, or out my way near Brentwood Bay you'd get pockets of activity only where people want it. 

 

Could it backfire if someone turned their property into say a race track next door to your tiny homes?  How much freedom would people have?  Build a concert band shell outside?  Create a campground?  I'm sure there are other odd tings people would come up with as personal pet projects...  Neighbours can be weird...

[max.bravo]

Could it backfire if someone turned their property into say a race track next door to your tiny homes?  How much freedom would people have?  Build a concert band shell outside?  Create a campground?  I'm sure there are other odd tings people would come up with as personal pet projects...  Neighbours can be weird...

 

Keep in mind that current governance practices, including zoning and bylaws, have largely taken over the role that being neighbourly used to have.

 

Before we outsourced all our social contracts (making and enforcing) to various levels of government, there was a common, inherently understood value in being a good neighbour. Nowadays you just call bylaw on whoever that guy is that moved in across the street because you don't like how he parks. Isn't that the de facto approach nowadays?

 

In the event of an emergency, God forbid, you might need to rely on a neighbour. It's pretty hard to do that if you've gone to great lengths to p**s off your neighbour by installing a race track in your backyard.

 

Conversely, it's very easy to accidentally p**s off your neighbour (by putting up the wrong kind of fence, for example) if you've never met them, have no reason to meet them, and don't know anyone on your block -- because government has grown so large it fills every need you once had at the community-level.

 

Something important is lost at the community-level when we become too proscriptive in planning and bylaws. We need to go back to greater emphasis on person-to-person interactions for problem solving at the community level, perhaps with a mechanism to enable escalation to a higher authority when necessary.

Edited by max.bravo, 28 October 2022 - 03:26 PM.

[Ismo07]

Keep in mind that current governance practices, including zoning and bylaws, have largely taken over the role that being neighbourly used to have.

 

Before we outsourced all our social contracts (making and enforcing) to various levels of government, there was a common, inherently understood value in being a good neighbour. Nowadays you just call bylaw on whoever that guy is that moved in across the street because you don't like how he parks. Isn't that the de facto approach nowadays?

 

In the event of an emergency, God forbid, you might need to rely on a neighbour. It's pretty hard to do that if you've gone to great lengths to p**s off your neighbour by installing a race track in your backyard.

 

Conversely, it's very easy to accidentally p**s off your neighbour (by putting up the wrong kind of fence, for example) if you've never met them, have no reason to meet them, and don't know anyone on your block -- because government has grown so large it fills every need you once had at the community-level.

 

Something important is lost at the community-level when we become too proscriptive in planning and bylaws. We need to go back to greater emphasis on person-to-person interactions for problem solving at the community level, perhaps with a mechanism to enable escalation to a higher authority when necessary.

 

Totally agree, but adding to your property how you see fit will piss off neighbours who would have given you their kidney 20 minutes before.  Zoning is important for many reasons and I think the main reason zoning exists is to ensure people don't do the "It's my property, I'll do what I want."  If needs exists, zoning will change to cover those needs, though it might take a little longer.  Doesn't zoning change earlier than the need for the most part?

Edited by Ismo07, 28 October 2022 - 03:34 PM.

[dasmo]

Those days are gone though, as you say. There are a lot of things broken about our outsourced society but we need to think in the shorter term. A total restructure isn't in the stars.

The kernel is that we need community say in what happens in our community.  This is what our community governments are SUPPOSED to be doing is representing us and helping to prevent the above from happening. This is why zoning exists. why we have democratic policies. Theoretically.

The primary problem with "form based zoning" is it will take existing communities and totally remove their right to have a say what happens. You don't want that 6 plex shading you out and staring into your back yard. Too bad, it is the property owner's right to do so. 

 

The idea of community plans is the community makes them. 

[Sparky]

Local Area Plans are neighbourhood plans that are developed with extensive consultation with community members. A local area plan identifies features of the community that are highly valued by citizens, and provides policy on how to protect and enhance them.

https://www.saanich....area-plans.html

[max.bravo]

Those OCPs and local area plans are baked before they go in the oven. What Planners learn in their masters degree is ‘Community Engagement’ - ie, how to make people feel heard while you do what the experts know is best anyway.

Another part of the problem is people move around too much. This isn’t just because of high renter rate and general mobility in society.

It happens largely because owners aren’t allowed to invest in making their property a place the family can sustainably live for several generations. The outcome is a bunch of well manicured suburban houses that are flipped quickly and always stay in a perpetual ‘ready to sell’ state.

We are stuck in the dream of the 1950s because of zoning. It was an experiment predicated on an assumption of how life should work, in the post war era.

It doesn’t work. We need a wholesale rethink of property rights, zoning, and planning in this country. The way we do it now isnt the only way, and it’s certainly not the right way.

Highly recommend the book Durable Trades for some background that touches this topic of land use theory. https://books.google...epage&q&f=false

Edited by max.bravo, 28 October 2022 - 04:50 PM.

[Nparker]

... We need a wholesale rethink of property rights, zoning, and planning in this country...

I don't think this is necessarily true.

[dasmo]

Local Area Plans are neighbourhood plans that are developed with extensive consultation with community members. A local area plan identifies features of the community that are highly valued by citizens, and provides policy on how to protect and enhance them.

https://www.saanich....area-plans.html

Yes, That is the idea.

I didn't even know my community was drafting one.... How many here new "The Missing Middle" consultation was happening during Covid? 

The problem isn't the idea. It's that our bureaucrats aren't following the idea. 

The missing middle didn't come out of community consultation.