Vancouver

1429 readers

1 users here now

Community for the city of Vancouver, BC

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Vancouver about to eliminate its single-family residential zoning rules (www.theglobeandmail.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, good thought, but it’s not gonna go well at public hearings. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Isn’t the goal to remove public hearings? Why should a neighbour get to decide what you do with your property. That’s what OCPs are for.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Even if it's not enough, it's still good to celebrate even small victories like these.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Vancouver could also use more mixed-use commercial/residential. More small corner stores, restaurants, etc. dotting the city.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's another sad half-measure.

Cramming more matchstick shoeboxes into the backyard isn't going to make enough of a dent: instead of putting 4 more miniature townhouses back there, bulldoze the lot until it's contiguous and put up another tower.

Bungalows are ancient history; a fad from a by-gone picket-fence boomer era. We need the parkland back and we need the housing; and the only way we'll get both is by ensuring all housing is dense a-f so we can reserve for shared green-space.

Let's stop messing around.

[+] [email protected] -20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Cramming more people here is not the solution. Making it more appealing to live elsewhere in lower density and lower cost regions of our vast country is.

Consider the following: a government incentive to business to subsidize or lower taxation for people who can work remotely.

If I’m a web designer or IT expert have the government subsidize my employment or lower my taxation for living outside of a major metropolis. Work out of the interior somewhere in a town of <50,000 people. But to get the subsidy the employer must commit to maintain the hire for a minimum of 5 years.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah no, we need density.

You know what those small towns you're thinking of are? Urban sprawl. The entire town is urban sprawl. No towers. Single family detached homes everywhere. No good public transit because there's not enough density to support it. Rentals are 80% basements.

Moving more people into those towns without pushing for densification is going to lead too ... You guessed it, even more urban sprawl!

Is that really the path you think we should be going down?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

To add to this, that sprawl relies on heavily subsidiaries to exist. Tax wise they collect a fraction of the taxes needed to maintain their infrastructure (depending on where suburban areas collect ½ to ⅒ of the cost needed to sustain themselves). So they are rely on subsidies from high density areas and deficit spending to exist.

As a society, spending so much to subsidize low density developments is why we have a housing crisis. It is an economically unsustainable way to build housing, and that is coming back to bite us now. We cannot afford to keep building like this.

The idea of further subsidizing people to live in already subsidized areas is terrible economic policy. It is paying someone to waste your money.

If people want to choose to live in low density areas, that is fine by me, but they need to actually pay for it themselves. We need to end the subsidies that exist now, not add new ones.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I agree. Except regarding the form of the density. I agree towers have their ppace but I prefer to see more single-stair 6-story housing across the city.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Archive.ph version

load more comments