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.