Attention North Shore residents and businesses - Delightful Horseshoe Bay Office Space for Lease!

Tired of working from home? Looking for a delightful, small office space with a remarkable view?

I recently learned about a space for lease in Horseshoe Bay, overlooking the park and waterfront. Horseshoe Bay is going through a transformation and this property is ultimately slated for redevelopment. However, it is available for a minimum three-year term with a potential extension. Lease terms are negotiable. For more details, contact Blake Newton blake.newton@cbre.com or 604 662 5575.

Tell him I sent you and he might buy me lunch at Trolls restaurant next door!

My presentation to the Urbanarium Debate on why we need to rethink the DTES Plan - March 28, 2023

On March 28, I participated in a debate organized by the Urbanarium Society, on whether it was time to rethink the Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan approved by Vancouver City Council in 2014. I was joined by former city councillor Suzanne Anton. While I could not understand why anyone would believe the plan is working and need not be rethought, Nathan Edelson and Tanya Fader argued the plan need not be rethought. Some of their reasoning can be found here. http://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com/2023/04/opinion-its-time-to-rethink-dtes-local.html

The following is the slide deck I presented in my opening arguments. I hope this presentation will help us continue this conversation. The plan is not working. It's evident to anyone who walks around the community. What is needed is a much more diverse population that will 'normalize', yes 'normalize' the Downtown Eastside Oppenheimer District so that it can remain a low-income community, but a more attractive community with new buildings and residents, but without all the vacant, boarded up storefronts and overall sense of despair.

Opinion: It's time to rethink the DTES Local Area Plan, Business in Vancouver April 11, 2023

I first posed these questions a decade ago when Vancouver council was considering a new plan for the Downtown Eastside that prohibited any new ownership housing in the Oppenheimer District (DEOD). This is the area bounded by Gastown on the west, Chinatown and Strathcona on the south, the waterfront on the north and an industrial district on the east.

Not only were condominiums prohibited, but new residential developments required 60 per cent social housing units and 40 per cent rental units. By comparison, along the north shore of False Creek and Coal Harbour, the city’s policy allowed a broader mix of tenures with 20 per cent social housing and 80 per cent market ownership and rental housing.

The DEOD plan also required that new storefront retail serve only residents, rather than the city at large. This was in response to neighbourhood resident concerns about higher end restaurants like PiDGiN that catered to people not living in the neighbourhood.

At the time I wrote “if approved, these zoning changes would result in the DTES remaining the worst crime-ridden and impoverished ghetto in any Canadian city”. Yes, strong words; but I argued that a zoning bylaw prohibiting home ownership was a contradiction of everything planners knew about creating healthy neighbourhoods.

The city’s rationale for prohibiting condominiums was to keep land values low so social housing would be more financially viable. However, I feared the zoning proposal was wrong from other financial perspectives. There were limited senior government funds for social housing and Rich Coleman, then provincial minister responsible for housing had announced funding for new social housing projects would be limited to those in greatest need, namely the homeless and those suffering from mental illness and addictions.

I also questioned how many rental housing buildings would be built under the new zoning, especially when they had to include 60 percent social housing.

Rather than ban condominiums, I advocated for more developments like the Woodwards complex that combined ownership, rental, and social housing with new stores and offices, and Simon Fraser University’s School for Contemporary Arts.

Sadly, community activists opposed developments like Woodwards. They claimed they would lead to gentrification and attract new residents who would make neighbourhood residents feel uncomfortable. I disagreed. Rather than lead to gentrification, which means the ‘gentry’ will force out existing low-income residents, I argued mixed tenure developments would lead to a much-needed regeneration of the neighbourhood.

Sadly, council agreed with those arguing for a prohibition on ownership housing and retail uses catering to a broader public. Today we can see the results.

Recently, the Urbanarium Society, a non-profit organization promoting dialogue on planning and urban issues, organized a debate on whether the 2014 DTES Plan should be rethought. Local journalist Frances Bula agreed to serve as the moderator, but as she told the audience, the organizers had difficulty finding people willing to participate, for either side.

Given my concerns about the Downtown Eastside dating back to 1974 when I was a CMHC architect and planner overseeing the design of neighbourhood social housing, I agreed to participate on the ‘pro’ side. I was joined by former city councillor and provincial Attorney General Suzanne Anton.

Former city planner Nathan Edelson, who had participated in the preparation of the 2014 DTES plan, and Tanya Fader, Director of Housing for PHS Community Services Society were on the ‘con’ side. During the debate, they argued it was a 30-year plan and had only been in place for 10 years. Moreover, both were convinced that allowing ownership housing would force out low-income residents.

To ensure broader participation, the Urbanarium organizers invited neighbourhood residents and merchants to participate in the event. At the end of the evening, the audience was asked to vote on who won the debate. The majority sided with those arguing against a rethink of the plan.

In my closing remarks, I agreed that the DEOD should remain a predominantly low-income neighbourhood and residents should have a say in its future. However, without higher income homeowners in the community, too many of the storefronts will remain vacant for another decade. In addition to bringing buying power, homeowners would bring an infusion of civic pride into the neighbourhood.

I also agreed the SROs should eventually be phased out and replaced with self-contained homes with private kitchens and bathrooms. But in the meantime, the city should enforce its Standards of Maintenance bylaw so that existing buildings, many of which are so disgusting residents prefer to sleep on the streets, are renovated and made livable.

In preparing for the debate, I visited the Oppenheimer neighbourhood and took photos to compare the planners’ 2014 vision, as illustrated in the plan, with today’s reality. I would encourage all Vancouver residents to take a walk along Hastings and Main Streets, and other nearby streets, and consider whether continuing to ban a broader social and income mix is a sensible planning approach.

I also invite Vancouver residents to join me in urging the new council to direct city planners to rethink their 2014 plan and propose revisions that will transform the Oppenheimer District into a more diverse and healthy community.

Michael Geller, FCIP, RPP, MLAI is planner, real estate consultant, and retired architect.  He is also an adjunct professor in SFU’s Centre for Sustainable Development and School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM). He writes a blog at www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com and is active on twitter @michaelgeller.

 

Missing Middle, Gentle Density, 15-minute city Vancouver Sun March 14, 2023

I first wrote about the 15-minute City last year for Senior Line, the Jewish Seniors' Alliance's quarterly magazine. http://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-15-minute-city.html  At the time, it never occurred to me that one day citizens would be organizing protests to oppose this widely accepted planning concept. But that's what has been happening in cities around the world. When someone sent me this poster from Edmonton, I just had to write about it again. And while I was at it, I thought I would offer the true meaning of 'missing middle' and 'gentle density' before these terms generated citizens' revolts. Here's my column from today's Vancouver Sun, with thanks to you Mary Beth Roberts for helping to find space for it. I just hope it will encourage a more thoughtful discussion about planning concepts, and encourage colleagues in the development community to consider advertising in West Coast Homes now that the housing market is improving!

 When my daughter and her cousin get together to discuss their work at the dinner table, I often have no idea what they are talking about. Both are doctors, and their conversations are invariably peppered with technical terms, acronyms and abbreviations that are meaningless to me.

The same is no doubt true when community planners discuss whether to ‘relax the site coverage’ or request ‘improved CPTED measures.’ CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) refers to building and landscape design features intended to reduce the fear of crime and opportunities to commit crimes.

Several new terms have been added to the planner’s lexicon in recent years. Each is attracting considerable public attention, and one even sparked a widely publicized community protest in Edmonton. Before they cause more confusion and unrest, it might be useful to examine what they mean.

‘Missing middle housing’ is one glossary addition that is often misunderstood, even by planners and politicians. For some, it is housing targeted to a socio-economic group that is too wealthy to qualify for government-subsidized ‘social housing’ but too poor to afford conventional market developments.

However, for most planners, this term refers to housing forms between conventional single-family detached housing and apartments. Examples can include duplexes, triplexes, townhouses and ‘stacked townhouses.’

These housing forms are also referred to as ‘gentle density,’ especially when proposed within established single-family neighbourhoods. The recent proposals in Vancouver and other cities in British Columbia to allow up to six homes on a single-family lot are examples of gentle density.

Allowing laneway or coach houses or the subdivision of larger houses into multiple suites are other ways to achieve this gentle density.

Another expression attracting considerable attention is ‘the 15-minute city.’

First proposed in 2016 by Carlos Moreno, an associate professor at Sorbonne University Business School in Paris, France, it refers to an urban planning concept in which most daily activities can be accomplished by either walking or cycling from one’s home within 15 minutes. For some, it may include accessing these services and activities by public transit within a similar timeframe.

The 15-minute city concept gained prominence when it was used during Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s successful re-election in Paris in 2020. Since then, politicians and planners worldwide have been using it to describe the types of neighbourhoods they want to promote in their cities or municipalities.
The key consideration is that the 15-minute city or neighbourhood is quite different than the auto-oriented car-dependent neighbourhoods that planners have been creating since the 1950s, where there are no corner stores, and you often must drive children to school. It may even be necessary to drive to a neighbourhood park or playground.

If you live in downtown Vancouver, Kitsilano or Kerrisdale; along Number 3 Road in Richmond or Lonsdale Avenue in North Vancouver; or in West Vancouver’s Dundarave Village, you already enjoy the attributes of a 15-minute neighbourhood. Indeed, most urban areas built before the overwhelming proliferation of cars have the qualities of a 15-minute city.

For most of us, this is a very desirable type of neighbourhood. This is why planners were astonished to learn of a protest in Edmonton organized by a group opposed to 15-minute cities.

Posters headlined “PROTEST AGAINST 15 MINUTE CITIES IN EDMONTON” warned residents that “Edmonton wants to start something called 15 minute cities where you can’t go to any area that is more than 15 minutes from you, limiting your movement between DISTRICTS as they called it. You will spend 90% of your life in this 15 minute area as they are monitoring your ‘carbon footprint’ aka your actual footprint. When are we protesting: Friday February 10th at 3 pm. Bring your signs and flags.”

While conspiracy theorists asserting clandestine government plans are becoming increasingly common, this had to be the most remarkable or foolish claim to arrive on my Twitter feed.

To be clear, Edmonton and other cities are not proposing that residents be confined to a certain geographic area like Patrick McGoohan in The Prisoner, the 1967 British television series about an unnamed British intelligence agent imprisoned in a mysterious coastal village.

While many of us enjoy living in 15-minute cities or neighbourhoods, the challenge for planners and politicians is how best to transform sprawling car-oriented suburbs into more walkable and accessible ’15-minute cities’ or neighbourhoods.

Redesigned neighbourhoods will allow residents to access amenities without having to always get in their cars with the attendant negative impacts on their health and environment, not to mention pocketbooks.

One way is to revise zoning bylaws to allow more widespread mixing of shops and housing. This might include building corner stores within established single-family neighbourhoods as part of new townhouses or apartment developments.

It could also include transforming arterial streets by replacing single-family houses with mixed-use buildings offering grocery stores, pharmacies and offices with housing above.

Another approach is to add housing, libraries and even schools on the expansive parking lots surrounding older suburban shopping centres since, for many of us, the shopping centre is also our community centre.

Finally, we need to rethink our public transit system. Instead of having to walk 20 minutes to a bus stop, why not bring the bus stop to outside our homes? This is already happening with HandiDart and community shuttle routes operated by minibuses. This will no doubt become more feasible when autonomous vehicles become more commonplace.

As the expression goes, “everything old is new again.” This is particularly true when you compare how cities were designed in the past and how we want them to be designed in the future. With missing middle housing, gentle density and 15-minute cities, we may all be able to enjoy healthier lives and healthier cities. Now, this is something worthy of a community protest.

Michael Geller is a Vancouver-based planner, real estate consultant and retired architect. He serves on the Adjunct Faculty of SFU’s Centre for Sustainable Development and School of Resource and Environmental Management. He writes a regular blog at gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca and can be found on Twitter@michaelgeller

A ChatGPT stereotypical NIMBY letter & why I won't use it at a Public Hearing in West Van this Monday

An artist's illustration of a proposed rental development comprising small studio suites

Brandon Donnelly is a Toronto-based architectural graduate now active in the development industry. Every morning, yes, every morning around 6 am, he writes a blogpost about various matters, but usually related to real estate or design. He's an excellent writer and based on his posts, he strikes me as a very charming and intelligent guy. https://brandondonnelly.com/

Today he posted something truly fascinating. It's a ChatGPT AI computer generated generic letter opposing a new housing development in a neighbourhood. 

It particularly struck home (if you'll pardon the pun) since this Monday evening March 6, provided I don't have to attend to an important family matter, I intend to speak at a Public Hearing in West Vancouver in support of a new rental housing project near Taylor Way and Marine Drive...yes, one of the most congested intersections in the Lower Mainland. You can read about the development proposal in this North Shore News article. https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/all-rental-apartment-proposal-in-west-vancouver-going-to-public-hearing-6442793.

A slide from a presentation to architects and others on the appropriateness of well-designed smaller suites. The illustration is from a UK publication on housing.

At the Public Hearing, I will be sharing with the mayor and councillors my opinion about smaller suites, and the history of 600 Drake Street inVancouver. https://www.concertproperties.com/rentals/600-drake. I vividly recall the Council discussion about this VLC proposal thirty years ago. Many of the units were so small the project necessitated a reconsideration of minimum unit sizes for market housing in Vancouver, and other municipalities. 

Slides from a presentation given to Metro politicians on the need to be open-minded
when it comes to minimum housing sizes.

Following the Public Hearing, Alderman Jonathan Baker eloquently told the audience and fellow aldermen that he would be opposing the project since "Living in these units will be like living in a coffin".

Well, he was wrong, as this post-occupancy UBC thesis evaluation revealed: https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0086752

But back to Mr. Donnelly's post. Having demonstrated another example of ChatGPT to his readers in an earlier blogpost, he wrote: 

Okay, I really don’t want to make this — using ChatGPT to write my blog posts for me — a habit. But I was genuinely curious what would happen if I asked it to: “write a stereotypical NIMBY letter opposing a new housing development.” Here’s what it generated.

---

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development in our neighborhood. While I understand the need for affordable housing in our city, I believe that this project would have a detrimental impact on our community.

First and foremost, the proposed development is simply too large for our area. The increase in population density would put a strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and strain on our public services. Additionally, the construction of this project would result in significant environmental damage, destroying natural habitats and putting wildlife at risk.

Furthermore, the type of housing being proposed is simply not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. This development would bring in a large number of low-income residents, which could lead to increased crime rates and other negative social effects. It would also drastically alter the aesthetic of our area, replacing the existing greenery and open spaces with a monolithic, high-density housing complex.

Finally, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on property values in the surrounding area. The influx of low-income residents could result in a decline in property values, making it difficult for current residents to sell their homes and move elsewhere.

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposed housing development. While I recognize the need for affordable housing, I believe that this project is simply not the right fit for our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, [Your Name]

---

I must say that I’m impressed. It is a solid 5-paragraph letter that follows a tried and true formula. First, the entire letter is sandwiched between thinly veiled statements around the importance of housing. Both the introduction and conclusion speak to “the need for affordable housing.”

And then in the middle of the letter, it hits on the holy trinity of opposition arguments: (1) overburdened/inadequate infrastructure, (2) neighborhood character, and (3) property values. I’m not sure there’s much to improve on here. These computers are good.

So, if you happen to need one of these, you may want to try ChatGPT.

My hope is that at Monday's Public Hearing, someone will recite this letter, or something similar, and councillors will gently smile. And Council will approve the project. 

comments | read more

    

 

March 2, 1981- 42 years ago today.

Forty-two years ago today, on Monday March 2, 1981, after spending 10 years with CMHC, I walked into Narod's office on the 22nd floor of 650 West Georgia and started working in the private real estate sector. I remember the day quite vividly since by 5 o'clock, Roger Moors had sold me a MURB unit in Mariner Point, even though Sally and I couldn't afford to buy a place to live.

I enjoyed two wonderful adventurous years at Narod. !981 was a good year for the real estate industry. We had lunch most days in the Garden Lounge or Pavillon in the Four Seasons. David Mooney usually ordered a bottle of Corton Charlemagne when we were having lobster and it was not unusual to finish a meal with a bottle of Chateau Yquem. It had been a condition of employment that I take up golf and I got to stay at some fine resorts where our 'management sessions' were held and play some of the better courses in the Pacific Northwest and California. But it didn't last long.

Two years later, on March 9th, 1983, the Queen arrived in Vancouver, and the receivers arrived at Narod's office. I was the only officer there to greet them since David Mooney, Craig Waddell and the others were in Hawaii playing golf. However, whatever happens is often for the best. 

Two of the receivers retained me to help finish Mariner Point and continue with the rezoning of 92 acres of BC Packers' Lands on the Steveston Waterfront. 

Thanks to these receivers, and BC Packers who also asked me to continue with the rezoning of its property, Michael Geller & Associates Limited (MGAL) was incorporated and has been active for the past forty years.

It has been a most enjoyable time. There were a couple of disappointments. I was unable to rezone the Spetifore Lands in Delta, after 26 nights of public hearings. Yes, 26 nights. I also failed in a bid to rezone Langara Gardens for three more highrises, after obtaining approval for a fourth tower on West 57th, over George Puil's vigorous objection. But some of the company's successes included rezoning of three blocks in Point Grey next to the Jericho Lands; Furry Creek,, Bayshore, Deering Island, and more recently Park West and the Travelodge site in North Vancouver.

Over the four decades, the company undertook eight development projects in Vancouver and West Vancouver, on its own, or in partnership with others.

Later this year, some events are planned to mark the 40th anniversary of the company. I look forward to getting together with the many clients, architects, contractors, and others with whom I have worked over the four decades. But for now, I'll simply reflect on all the changes that have taken place in the city since I started with Narod, 42 years ago today. Thanks to all who have made it such an enjoyable ride! 

 

Creating rental housing through Inclusionary Zoning - Journal of Commerce February 22, 2023

I always enjoy taking a telephone call from journalist Peter Caulfield. He's genuinely interested in the topics he writes about and eager to learn more. I discussed 'inclusionary zoning' with Peter for approximately 45 minutes while driving across Vancouver Island to attend an affordable housing conference in Tofino, which I reported on in a previous blog. we would have spoken longer, but I eventually was out of cellular range!  

While I have been severely criticized by many for my recent column arguing against 'vacancy controls', https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2023/02/21/Case-Against-Vacancy-Controls-Vancouver/ hopefully few will disagree with me that inclusionary zoning is one way to create affordable housing, integrated with market housing, without reliance on government subsidies. One thing that didn't make it into this article is that someone must pay for the below market units and if it isn't government, it is often those buying the adjacent condominium homes.

138 new affordable homes officially open in west side Vancouver - Peter Caulfield

S.U.C.C.E.S.S. and the Tikva Rental Housing Society recently celebrated the official opening of Dogwood Gardens, a new affordable housing project that is part of the City of Vancouver’s Cambie Gardens development at West 59th Avenue and Cambie Street.

The event was attended by Queenie Choo, CEO of S.U.C.C.E.S.S.  (United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society), Anat Gogo, executive director of Tikva (“hope” in Hebrew) and local dignitaries, including Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim.

“We applaud the work of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. and Tikva, who have helped expand options for culturally appropriate housing across our city,” said Sim.

Dogwood Gardens, which contains 138 affordable homes, is part of a partnership with the City of Vancouver. 

S.U.C.C.E.S.S., which is the leaseholder of Dogwood Gardens, and Tikva are co-managing the project.

Of the 138 new homes, 34 are studio, 35 are one-bedroom, 41 are two-bedroom and 28 are three-bedroom units.

Dogwood Gardens will have a mix of rents, including 14 shelter-rate units.

Ten units are reserved for people in the province’s Supporting Tenants, Enabling Pathways (STEP) program, which helps them transition out of supportive housing. 

Dogwood Gardens will have amenity space, a children’s play area, parking and storage. 

Tikva has been allocated 30 units and has filled them all since it began moving in tenants in October 2022.

S.U.C.C.E.S.S. is in the process of interviewing prospective tenants for its 108 units.

COURTESY S.U.C.C.E.S.S. — Dogwood Gardens, which contains 138 affordable homes, is part of a partnership with the City of Vancouver. Of the 138 new homes, 34 are studio units, 35 are one-bedroom units, 41 are two-bedroom units and 28 are three-bedroom units.

 It has been operating and managing affordable housing projects across Metro Vancouver since 2008, in collaboration with BC Housing and local municipalities.

Tikva has been providing access to “innovative and affordable housing solutions,” primarily for Jewish individuals and families, since 2007.

Tikva operates 128 units in five housing developments in Vancouver and Richmond and a rent subsidy program that provides temporary financial assistance to private market renters.

Dogwood Gardens is the first of four affordable housing buildings being developed at Cambie Gardens, which will ultimately provide 540 new affordable homes. 

Dogwood Gardens was developed through Vancouver’s inclusionary zoning policy, which provides social housing to the City as a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) by the developer.

CACs are in-kind or cash contributions by property developers when Vancouver City Council grants development rights through rezoning.

The rationale for CACs is that the demand on city facilities increases with rezonings because new residents and new employees enter the area.

To lessen the impact on the community, CACs add and expand city facilities.

Ryan Bigelow, managing director of Vancouver’s non-market housing development and operations, says there have been several projects where the city has obtained social housing units as in-kind CACs.

“Over the last 10 years, the city has secured over 3,000 social housing units as in-kind CACs,” said Bigelow. “Approximately 600 of these units are now in operation.”

Dogwood Gardens is the first completed affordable housing project at Cambie Gardens.

“There is an additional turnkey social housing building that was secured with an agreement, as a condition of the rezoning,” said Bigelow. “There are also two ‘dirt sites’ (land) which will be transferred to the city to build an additional 179 social housing units.”

Michael Geller, Vancouver planner and real estate developer, says inclusionary zoning started in the U.S. but since then has become widespread.

“One of the benefits of this approach is socioeconomic mixing,” said Geller. “That can be good for everyone, especially for those in social housing.”

Another benefit is that it doesn’t rely on senior government funding.

“It’s a wonderful way to produce affordable housing,” said Geller. “But the non-market housing depends on the market housing in order to go ahead.”

Experience has shown, Geller says, the successful use of inclusionary zoning to create social housing is tied to overall market conditions.

“In a rising market it works well,” he said. “But if demand falls off, it can become very difficult to make the market-oriented projects work financially, and developers might decide not to proceed with their projects. In that case the non-market housing doesn’t get built, either.”

Geller says there are other ways to create affordable housing.

“One of the best is to give rent subsidies to people who are most in need and let them choose where they want to live,” he said. “There’s a debate among housing planners on the relative merits of subsidizing housing supply versus subsidizing housing demand. Should money be given to developers or to consumers?”

Geller says the best solution is to go back to the 1970s when the federal government made money available to non-profit organizations to build rental and co-op housing projects.