Sunday, July 12, 2020

In for a penny, in for a pound: Final thoughts on Broadway & Birch rezoning


In for a penny in for a pound was one of my late mother's favourite sayings. For those who are not familiar with it, it means if a person decides to do something, he or she should fully commit to it. Once involved, one must not stop at half-measures.

Since publishing my last post, I have received considerable criticism because of my opposition to this project. Some cannot understand why I am writing and speaking out. Who has put me up to this? Do I have a vendetta against the developer? Why would I question the economics and challenge the city's statement that this proposal does not result in any land value increase?

I would like to respond. But first I want to share another concern that I have previously kept to myself, namely the size and livability of the ‘moderate-income’ rental suites and the anticipated rents when viewed on a price per square foot basis.

Let me start by noting this project is designed by IBI Architects. I consider them one of Vancouver's most capable firms and I have worked with them many times. I am currently working on a project which they designed in North Vancouver and I have only the highest regard for them. 

Here is the plan for Level 5 along with the plans for some of the units. You can find all of the plans here: https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2538birch/documents/2538BirchSt-FloorPlans..pdf



The units on levels 4 through 9 on which the moderate-income rental suites are located are extremely small. There are 13 suites on Level 5 which has a floor plate of 9500 sq.ft. which is very large by Vancouver standards. As a result, there is a relatively low ratio of windows to suite area and this impacts livability. The higher market housing floors have a floor plate ranging from approx 5400 to 6900 sq.ft.


You will note that although the units are extremely small, they do have storage rooms. There are two reasons for this. The first is that they add to the livability. The second is that the area of the storage rooms is not counted in the floor space calculation, and it has become standard practice in Vancouver to maximize a building size by including in-suite storage wherever possible, in addition to the permitted FSR.


The staff report notes the following:

The MIRHP Program allows for consideration of the relaxation of unit sizes and configurations subject to the projects location, liveability, design performance and affordability. Considerations include the relaxation of the size of studio units from a minimum of 37 sq. m (398 sq. ft.) to 29.7 sq. m (320 sq. ft.), along with the provision for some inboard bedrooms (bedrooms without external windows) within the three-bedroom moderate income units. This application includes both studio units less than 37 sq. m (398 sq. ft.) and inboard third bedrooms.


While I could not find the moderate-income average unit sizes in the rezoning report, I calculated them as follows: studio - approx 370 sq.ft.; 1-bedroom approx 462 sq.ft.; 2-bedroom approx 709 sq.ft.; 3-bedroom approx 900 sq.ft.

While most of the 3-bedroom units do have windows in each bedroom, illustrated is a plan for a 3-bedroom with an internal third bedroom.

I am a proponent of smaller, well-designed homes. However, one of the major advantages of smaller suites under the moderate-income rental housing program is that the rents can be set by income levels, rather than a limit on price per square foot. 

During a twitter debate yesterday, someone assumed the rent per square foot for the non-market units would be $2.25 per month. In reality, using the allowable rent levels based on income, I calculate rents could be $2.70 per sq.ft. per month. As a result the average studio could be $1,045, 1-bedroom $1,320; 2-bedroom $1,760 and 3-bedroom $2,200.


So how does this compare with what is set out in the staff report? Well the staff report doesn't give the average rents. Instead, like a marketing brochure it gives the starting rents.

Under the program guidelines, the average rents will likely be higher than the 'starting rents'.(CLARIFICATION: While I calculated these rents based on small unit sizes, and what I understood to be the "rents starting from" others have pointed out that I misunderstood the staff report. These are in fact the rents in year one following building completion.) If this is correct, I am wrong and the starting rents are lower than $2.70 psf. However, my unit size calcualtions appear correct. )

So what's the big deal, you ask? Well, at $2.70 per sq.ft., the non-market units will be lower than market rents in new buildings, but they will not be dramatically less than what the market rents might be on the lower floors of a new building. Meanwhile, the developer is seeking approval for a building that is 3.5 times the currently permitted density along the Broadway corridor and a DCL exclusion. 

Moreover, I suspect these suite sizes are considerably smaller than what most speakers who were passionately supporting this project will have assumed, even those prompted by Abundant Housing. The rents per square foot will also be much higher.

So why have I been speaking out and risking the wrath of my colleagues in the development community, as well as those city staff and councillors who may want to see this project proceed?

For the past 7+ years I have become increasingly concerned about a number of very high density projects being promoted and approved by the city, often in the name of affordability and sustainability. 

If you review my blog, http://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com/2013/09/ you will see I wrote about my concerns with a 6 FSR project in the 900 block of East Hastings, a 7.5 FSR rental project in the West End, the Independent at Broadway and Kingsway, and others. More recently I was concerned about two 24 FSR buildings that were approved in the West End. Gordon Price tells me this allowable density was the trade-off that residents were willing to make to keep density away from other parts of the West End. But I worry about these buildings as an urban planner. https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/when-is-big-too-big-when-it-comes-to-towers-1.21528494

I was first made aware of this particular proposal approximately 2 years ago by a lady who worked at SFU who emailed me seeking my advice on how to express neighbourhood concerns to the city. (I should note that I don't know her personally and have never met her.) At the time, I wasn't aware that the property had previously been rezoned from 3 FSR to 7 FSR but I could understand why, given the purpose built rental housing. But I questioned why a much higher FSR should now be allowed and wrote about it in the Courier. https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/bigger-isn-t-always-better-when-it-comes-to-rental-housing-in-vancouver-1.23542546

As an architect and planner, and someone who has been involved with a number of developments along the Broadway Corridor, including the tower at Broadway and Fir, and the building directly across the street while with Narod Developments, I thought the 10.5 FSR and scale of this building was completely inappropriate for this site. 

It saddens me that people assume I was put up to this or have some personal vendetta against the developer. The fact is, I am simply speaking my mind. As I drive around the city I often see buildings that are too big, but neither I or other professional architects or planners spoke out about them. 

As to why I questioned the economics, I was surprised to learn at the Public Hearing that in addition to the FSR bonus, the developer was requesting a DCL waiver when he was only creating 58 very small units. 

I was also troubled by the fact that nowhere in the staff report was there anything comparing the proposed FSR of the non-market units (1.99) relative to the additional density being requested (3.45) or other information on land lift, etc. I had to calculate it myself. 

On Tuesday at 1pm Council will make its decision on this project. Regardless of the outcome, I do hope I have contributed positively to the debate.

4 comments:

Lance Berelowitz said...

For what it's worth (not sure anyone with real influence at City Hall reads this or cares), I fully support Michael Geller's analysis above, and I too oppose this proposed rezoning for yet more density on this site. Both Geller and our colleague Scot Hein – amongst several others with solid credentials – have articulated several reasons why the developer's proposed additional height and density are inappropriate for this site at Birch & Broadway. The proposed building is too tall, too large and too bulky for this site. Furthermore, the resulting residential units are too small and their livability is seriously compromised. As Geller lucidly explains above, they are also likely to rent for too much money for many low/middle-income renters. Finally, the developers will be coming away with far too much profit from the project if they are successful, and the public benefits are correspondingly far too low. This sets a dangerous precedent for our city. If anyone on Vancouver City Council is reading this, please reject this rezoning application.

Unknown said...

As a former City of Vancouver community planner, I agree with Michael, Lance, Scot and others.

This building is too big snd the public benefits do not justify this increase in height or density. But even if they did, a proposal of this scale should be considered in the context of the upcoming Broadway Plan. In addition this proposal may actually lead to speculation and a reduction in the area's existing affordable rental housing stock.

محمد على said...


شركة تنظيف مكيفات بالرياض
شركة تنظيف كنب بالرياض
افضل شركة تنظيف مجالس بالرياض
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض

Curt Lennix said...

Need The To Hire A Hacker❓ Then contact PYTHONAX✅

The really amazing deal about contacting PYTHONAX is that the Hack done by us can’t get traced to you, as every Hacking job we do is strongly protected by our Firewall. It’s like saying if anyone tries to trace the Hack, it will lead them to us and we block whatever actions they are doing.

We have been Invisible to Authorities for almost a decade now and if you google PYTHONAX, not really about us comes out, you can only see comments made by us or about us.

Another Amazing thing to you benefit from Hiring our Hackers is that you get a Legit and the best Hacking service, As we provide you with Professional Hackers who have their Hacking Areas of specialization.
We perform every Hack there is, using special Hacking tools we get from the dark web.

Some list of Hacking Services we provide are-:
▪️Phone Hacking & Cloning ✅
▪️Computer Hacking ✅
▪️Emails & Social Media Account Hacking✅
▪️Recovering Deleted Files✅
▪️Tracking & Finding People ✅
▪️Hunting Down Scammers✅
▪️Hack detecting ✅
▪️Stealing/Copying Files & Documents From Restricted Networks and Servers ✅
▪️Bitcoin Multiplication✅
▪️Binary Option Money Recovery ✅
▪️Forex Trading Money Recovery✅
▪️IQ Option Money Recovery✅
And lots more......


Whatever Hacking service you require, just give us an Email to the Emails Address provided below.
pythonaxhacks@gmail.com
pythonaxservices@gmail.com

PYTHONAX.
2020 © All Right Reserved.