So, when is Big too Big? Density in the name of Affordability.

My concerns about high density, taller buildings that are out of scale with their immediate surroundings are not new. In fact, I have written about this for many years. 

Below is an article I wrote for the Vancouver Courier seven years ago. While it was about buildings in the West End and Downtown, I think it is worth reading within the context of the Broadway Plan and other developments happening around the region, often at densities that were inconceivable in Vancouver not that long ago.

FROM THE VANCOUVER COURIER August 1, 2027

Someone once asked, 

“When you are sitting in the bathtub with the hot water running, how do you know when to shout?”

     This quotation came to mind last week when Vancouver city council approved a rezoning application at Nelson and Burrard.

     The development includes 331 market strata units in a 57-storey tower, 61 units of social housing, seismic upgrades and restoration of a church, and expanded facilities and program space for the church and surrounding community. It will be the third tallest tower in the city, for the time being.

     The development is a partnership between the First Baptist Church of Vancouver and Westbank Project Corp — a company I greatly admire for working with top notch architects and a commitment to design excellence. This architecturally striking tower, intended to resemble a pair of organ pipes, was designed by the late Bing Thom.

     When a CBC reporter asked me what I thought of the design, I told her I thought it was very innovative and would appeal to those wanting to see more variety in Vancouver architecture.  But I agreed with those who thought it was too big for the site and neighbourhood context.

     She said she was surprised by my response. But she shouldn’t have been.

     While I have often sought approvals for taller and higher density developments, in recent years I have become increasingly concerned with the size of some new Vancouver developments. In my opinion, they are simply too big. 

     However, city staff and politicians justify higher densities and heights noting the developments offer promises of greater housing affordability, community amenities and sustainability.

     In supporting this development, Mayor Gregor Robertson repeatedly told reporters it would provide much needed social housing units and funding for more social housing at a time when federal and provincial subsidies were not available. He is correct.

     

     While council rightly rejected Chinatown’s 105 Keefer St. development, other developments have been approved at greater heights and densities than many planners considered appropriate since they offered public amenities, housing affordability and Community Amenity Contributions (CACs).

     They include the Independent at Kingsway and Broadway, and 508 Helmcken, which, at a floor space ratio (FSR) of 17.4, is approximately 10 times the density of a typical Kerrisdale highrise. These buildings are now under construction and time will tell if my concerns were valid.

     The famous American architect Louis Sullivan once said that building form should follow function. In the case of these projects, form follows finance.

     I acknowledge that there are architects, planners and developers who disagree with my concerns. They question whether it really matters if a building is 30 storeys, 40 storeys or 50 storeys. What matters more to them is how the building is designed at the street level. They believe FSR is a blunt instrument that should not be used to assess the likely success of a design.

     I understand and appreciate this point of view. However, it was not that long ago that six FSR was as high as the city would allow for residential development. Today double-digit FSR residential projects, like the Burrard and Nelson development, are becoming commonplace.

     The debate over when is big too big reminds me of a radio interview with the late Arthur Erickson many years ago. In describing his design philosophy, he said it was important for new developments to relate to their surroundings. When the interviewer pointed out that over time surroundings will change, Erickson agreed. But he added that future buildings should relate to his building designs, and so on. 

     As I look around Vancouver and other parts of Metro Vancouver, there is no doubt that many new developments no longer relate to their surroundings. Their designs are formed by the significant density bonuses offered in return for amenities, affordable housing and cold hard cash. 

     Each year Metro municipalities are now receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from developers in return for extra height and density. Many will say this is a good thing; it means property taxes will not have to go up so much.

However, I worry that if we continue to allow a yearning for housing affordability and CAC payments to drive project densities, heights and massing, we may ultimately compromise the quality of the built environment that has made Vancouver the envy of planners from around the world.

Ozzie Jurock's OZBUZZ Podcast with me. November 16, 2024

Ozzie Jurock https://ozbuzz.ca/ always enjoys telling it like it is. Or at least how he thinks it is. Which may be why I and so many others enjoy talking with him. 

Ozzie has had an incredible career, and has been very successful. He has made a lot of people a lot of money. His annual conferences attract hundreds, if not thousands of followers. 

Five years ago I wrote about one of them for the Vancouver Courier. https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/courier-archive/opinion/vancouver-real-estate-advisor-urges-conference-goers-to-jurock-this-way-3107615

Having known Ozzie for a long time, I always enjoy the opportuntiy to reminisce with him. 

He recently invited me to sit down and answer ten questions on a variety of issues. When our conversation was finished he offered me the opportunity to listen to the tape and edit it. I couldn't.

I hate listening to myself (I know, I'm not alone). While I don't always agree with everything I say after the fact, if I said it, I thought it should stay in. And so this is unedited content.

You can find our interview at the link below. Of course I talk about my concerns with the Broadway Plan, and the recent provincial Bills 44 and 47. But we also discuss quite a few other topics including how I got into the business, my favourite projects, and who I admire. 

I enjoyed Ozzie's questions. I hope you can find the time to listen in, and enjoy some of my answers. 

https://ozbuzz.ca/2024/11/16/c-housing-drama-the-legend-says-no-to-4-6-plexes-everywhere-highrises-ok-but-not-off-broadway/

Making Predictions about Vancouver Real Estate - Vancouver Real Estate Podcast - 2 years later

In 2020 I was invited by Adam and Matt Scalena, two charming and successful real estate agents to be a guest on their podcast. While I can't remember what I said then, I was invited back two years later in November 2022 on the day Ken Sim and his new council was inaugurated.

Over the weekend, someone mentioned that they had recently listened to this podcast (it was raining too much to play golf) and was suprised by how many of my predictions turned out to be right, and so terribly wrong!

Being the self-centred person that I am, I just listened to a portion of this interview. While I was embarrassed by some of the things I said, sadly I was right about how the deteriorating condition of the Downtown Eastside would ultimately lead to street crime impacting citizens throughout the city. City planners were in part to blame.

Below is a summary of some of the topics we discussed. If you have time, and are trying to decide whether to rent or buy, and where to buy, you might be interested some of the things  we discussed.

Does the current economic moment remind you of any other time in history?

Today is a mild version of what I witnessed from 1981-1983. In 1981, developers in Vancouver were making a lot of money and drinking very expensive wine. By 1983, interest rates had risen to 18% and that slowed everything down. Some house prices were dropping by 40-50%.

That is not what we’re seeing now, but we are seeing a decrease in sales. The rise in interest rates is impacting sales and prices, and it’s also causing pauses in both strata and rental developments. A lot of projects that looked attractive two years ago are not feasible today.

I don’t want to pretend I know what will happen to interest rates. When I grew up, 7-8% was considered an attractive rate.

What we do know is that a lot more people are moving to Canada, so the demand is there. It’s a question of figuring out how to match supply and demand.

How will the current interest rate environment impact housing affordability?

Vancouver will never be as affordable as Winnipeg. The cost of land, cost of construction and current interest rates make it hard to produce housing for those with modest incomes in this city.

It seems like the cost of building is up while house prices are coming down. How does that play out in the short term?

If all of the developers start putting their projects on hold, construction costs will come down. The contractors will be a bit hungrier. But there’s still the cost of materials.

One problem is a lot of these costs are global. It’s hard to believe the war in Ukraine impacts the cost of construction in Vancouver but it’s true. That’s a reality we have to deal with.

Will we see housing prices drop significantly in Vancouver?

No, I don’t think we’ll see prices drop by 50% in Vancouver like we saw in the 80’s. We’ve had downturns since then, like in 2008 when many developers went broke. We’ve seen costs go up and go down.

I got some advice when I was younger: Buy as soon as you can. Even if you pay too much, it won’t matter in the long run. That advice has stuck with me and I’ve given it to a lot of younger people. Prices do go up and down but in the long run, it doesn’t matter. In the long run, prices go up.

Don’t think of your personal residence just in terms of an investment

Is Ken Sim’s plan to improve the permit approval process feasible?

On election night, I was invited to an event to discuss what was happening. Colleen Hardwick was asked whether Ken Sim would be able to improve the approval process and she said he couldn’t. To which I replied, “The approval process in Vancouver is so bad it’s impossible not to improve it!”

I don’t know if Ken Sim will be able to get the process down to three days, three weeks or three months, but there are lots of ways to improve the permit approval process in Vancouver.

I drove down Cambie Street on my way here today and noticed all of the little bungalows that have been replaced by six-storey buildings. To achieve that, the city did an overall plan for the street and every single building went through a lengthy and expensive rezoning process.

That’s nuts! Some of those buildings are not particularly beautiful and they still went through this long process. We don’t need to have so many rezoning meetings and a complex review process. We need to rethink the role of the urban design panel. So yes, we can definitely improve the approval process in Vancouver

What is it about Vancouver’s permit approval process that is so challenging?

There’s such a backlog of applications at Vancouver City Hall because the staff have to go through such a lengthy process. I sent a note off to the city planners this morning and if it was any other developer, I’d expect a response by the end of the day. But with the city planners, I don’t think I’ll ever get a response!

There’s a lot of great staff at City Hall and I think the new council will bring in some good changes.

There was once an idea that we’d have the equivalent of a Nexus lane for architects, planners and developers who have demonstrated that they’re honest and do a good job. Why should they go through the same lengthy process as inexperienced people who need more hand holding? I think that’s an excellent idea for municipalities to adopt.

Do you think electing Ken Sim was a win for Vancouver?

Yes, I do think Ken Sim becoming mayor is a win for Vancouver. I know Kennedy Stewart and he’s a decent guy. But he’s just not the inspirational leader so many of us were looking for.

And for some reason, so many things got worse and not better under his leadership. The situation in the Downtown Eastside was one of those areas; the city should never have allowed the situation to deteriorate to the point that it has.

Back in university, I did my thesis on setting up modular housing on vacant lands. When I ran for city council in 2008, I suggested setting up these same modular units to help address homelessness. Finally, many years later, that idea was adopted. The way they are using them is expensive but there are other ways for us to create housing solutions.

Modular units or RVs may not be the right answer to address homelessness but we do need to come up with more creative answers. Sometimes it takes longer to build social housing than market condos

What is the biggest challenge facing Vancouver right now?

I think the situation in the Downtown Eastside is a huge problem for Vancouver. It does lead to a lot of crime and there’s nothing worse than worrying about your personal safety. I know a lot of people who are moving out of single family homes and into condos for the added security.

Right now there are five tents in front of St. Paul’s Hospital. Do we wait until there are 25 tents until we address the situation? We’ve become almost immune to this. People walk by these tents all the time without raising an eyebrow. We have to come up with some solutions

On housing affordability for young families in Vancouver:

Another problem in Vancouver is that so many people cannot afford to live here. And they certainly can’t afford to live in Vancouver and have children.

It bothers me that people are deciding whether or not to have children based on whether they can afford suitable accommodation. To those people, I saw you should move to Trail or Nanaimo, start a new life, and have children.

The Globe & Mail recently published an article saying young people should leave big cities like Toronto and Vancouver for the sake of their financial futures. Do you agree?

I hate to say it but in a way I subscribe to that. I worked in St. John’s, New Brunswick a number of years ago and at the time, St. John’s was ranked as one of the least liveable cities in Canada. But there was a good quality of life there. The cost of living and housing was considerably less than living in Toronto or Ottawa.

So while I want to give young people ideas about how to get into a house in Vancouver, at some point people should consider whether they can afford to live in Vancouver. Those ads we’ve heard about people moving to Alberta can be pretty enticing.

Are municipalities outside of Vancouver facing the same problems?

The problems we see in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside are not restricted to the Downtown Eastside. We’re seeing the same issues in Surrey, Maple Ridge and in other municipalities. Compared to the climate in the rest of Canada, Metro Vancouver is a lot more comfortable.

I was in a discussion recently about the growing tech industry in Vancouver. One of the concerns was rising housing costs for all of the employees of these big tech firms. I shared with the group that in San Francisco, they have Google buses that pick up employeesfrom the suburbs and bring them to work. There’s a similar program here with a bus going to/from Port Moody.

What areas outside of Vancouver do you see people moving to?

Port Moody is a sophisticated place. For people who can’t afford Yaletown, they move to Port Moody. There are a number of attractive communities, like Port Moody, North Vancouver and New Westminster, within Metro Vancouver. And you can go further; Abbotsford and Chilliwack can offer you a pretty nice quality of life.

When I did my first project in 1989, my wife and I took $1 million up to Squamish to buy property because I was convinced Squamish was the future. And now, Squamish is so expensive that people are moving to Pemberton!

If I was a lot younger, I’d invest in real estate in Lillooet. It’s far away but it’s a community that is going to transition over time. I visited a few years ago and it inspired me to write an article about how Lillooet is changing.

From these municipalities, you can still come into Vancouver. But a lot of people who do move out find they don’t want to come back into the city as often. On the weekends, I like to go out on my bike and discover different municipalities. It’s amazing how much is available outside of Vancouver.

We sometimes get it into our minds that the world revolves around Commercial Drive and Main Street… And those are prime places! But there are other communities outside of Vancouver that offer similar amenities.

Are you seeing a shift away from urban centres? Are cities less important?

There’s a wonderful blog by Brandon Donnelly, who is a big supporter of urban life. I mention this because there is a percentage of people who believe living, working and playing in the city is the way to go.

But there is also an increasing number of people who want an urbane existence but don’t need to have it in downtown Vancouver.

A number of years ago, a friend of mine became the mayor ofTrail, BC and so I was invited to visit. After spending a weekend there, I realized that Trail is a fabulous community. It has a history of mining but things are starting to change. I met a lot of interesting people who had moved to Trail to start new lives. They cared about the look of the community and it did look very attractive

Are smaller communities in BC having a moment?

I think so. One of my daughters moved to New West and the other moved to Victoria.Victoriahas been growing a lot over the years and downtown Victoria is very urbane. It’s like Vancouver was a few years ago. They have their own issues with crime and homelessness but it is still an alternative to Vancouver. Other alternatives would be Kelowna or Penticton.

The world is changing. It used to be East Vancouver was where you went for craft beer, but now Courtenay is winning that battle. When I was in Victoria, I picked up some whiskey and gin from local distilleries

On tackling housing affordability by mixing light industrial and residential housing:

When people ask me where we should build more affordable housing, I always say we should integrate housing with light industrial usage. And what prompted that idea was my daughters taking me on a craft brewery crawl for my birthday a few years ago. As I sat in these places with my pint of beer, I kept wondering why there wasn’t housing above.

So I’m now pitching a new project where we don’t reduce the number of industrial units but we incorporate residential units within it. In my mind, that makes a lot of sense. It helps us increase capacity and make the most of the high cost of industrial land. False Creek Flats would be an ideal spot for this.

For years, people opposed the integration of housing with light industry because they thought it would raise the value of the land so much that industry wouldn’t want to be there. But that’s simply not true.

Anytime I see a one or two storey building in Richmond, I just want to put a modular house on the top! When you look at a parkade, almost no one parks on the top floor. So why not put housing there?

One of the reasons why I think the Downtown Eastside got worse was because in 2014, city council decided to restrict condo development in the Oppenheimer District of the DTES. I argued against that because I believe we need a broader mix of people in the area, rather than a “ghetto” of low income people.

But the council decided to not allow condominiums so as to not increase the value of land and make it unaffordable for social housing. That was a mistake. We need to advocate for a broader socioeconomic mix in that area

What are your thoughts on the supportive housing project at 8th and Arbutusthat a lot of people seem to be against?

I did participate in that discussion and I did support having social housing in that area. But what I did not support was having a high concentration of formerly homeless people all brought into one building.

When I was at CMHC, we used to talk about what the magical size of a building should be. We concluded that when you went above 60 units, you change the complexion of a building. So my argument against this site wasn’t with the scale of the development but was with wanting to put 100 formerly homeless people into the building.

Why can’t we make social projects just look like market or rental projects? I found this building looked too institutional. If it just looked like a regular apartment building, I think it would have generated less opposition.

Will areas in Vancouver like Chinatown and Railtown have their day again?

Absolutely. The pendulum swings and neighbourhoods change over time. Some neighbourhoods have always been beautiful but even places like Shaughnessy went through hard times. Over the years, things change and now we’re allowing subdivisions and coach houses in Shaughnessy, which is great.

Point Grey used to be a beautiful neighbourhood. Now, a lot of the shops are boarded up and the Safeway left. It’s not attractive. But in 20 years, it will be. New retail will come in, transit will get closer and the area will have a revival.

Throughout history, neighbourhoods get better and worse. Some do better than others but the pendulum does swing.

What do the next 1-5 years in the Vancouver real estate market look like?

Construction costs have now risen to the point where projects are going on hold. But as more projects go on hold, the construction costs will come down and the projects will get going again.

A lot will depend on what happens to interest rates, as well as what is happening in the global context. What happens in the US and China and in other parts of the world impact us and we don’t have control over that.

But municipal governments do have control over certain things and the stuff they can do is important. They have to deal with crime and housing affordability, but they also have to work on building liveable and attractive communities. I don’t understand the priorities of people in government who let these places deteriorate

I hope most municipal governments will commit themselves to making our communities more and more liveable. If not, I’ll have to come back on this podcast in a few years and encourage people to move to Lillooet and Trail and other places that are focused on creating liveable communities

The 5 Wire: Getting to Know Planner & SFU Professor, Michael Geller

What is one book you’d recommend listeners read?

I’ll give two books. For your younger listeners, I recommend “21 Lessons for the 21st Century” by Yuval Noah Harari. I highly recommend that book! Harari is a wonderful writer.

For your older listeners, I recommend “The Last Days of Roger Federer: And Other Endings” by Geoff Dyer. It’s not just about Roger Federer or tennis but about people’s last days. If you’re a musician, when do you decide to stop? Do you stop when you’re at the peak or do you keep touring forever?

For us real estate people, we probably won’t stop until no one will hire us. I love what I do so I can’t see myself stopping anytime soon

In the last 5 years, is there a new belief, behaviour or habit that has improved your life?

I’ve changed my attitude towards what I eat. I’ve become more conscious about what I eat; I actually look at the ingredients on the packages and every once and a while I put something back.

What music do you have on repeat right now?

10cc! In the 1960s and 70s I lived in Manchester with a group that hung out with Graham Gouldman. I’m stuck in the past!

What have you been binge watching?

When I was in Europe I attended an architecture and design film festivalwhich then came to Vancouver in early November. Even if you missed the event, you can look up the films.One film I will recommend is about Richard Henriquez, who is a friend of mine and has designed a lot of important projects in Vancouver.

What is something you’ve purchased in the last few years for under $1500 that has had a positive impact on your life?

My golf clubs! If you had asked me 40 years ago, I’d talk about a painting or sculpture because that gave me the greatest joy back then. But that’s not so important to me anymore.

The next time I’m on, it will probably be my electric bike. I don’t have one yet. People who own them tell me they’re always worried about their bikes being stolen, so hopefully we can do something about that.

https://www.vancouverrealestatepodcast.com/podcast/50-years-of-vancouver-real-estate-wisdom-with-michael-geller/

Broadway Plan Public Hearing - November 14, 2024

Thanks to Mike Klassen and Peter Meizner and any other councillors who did appear in the council chamber to listen to the few speakers who showed up at the hearing. 

Last evening, the Public Hearing for the first three of the dozens of Broadway Plan highrise tower proposals continued. Ever since the 70s when I was a CMHC architect/planner trying to help non-profits obtain approvals for social housing projects, I have had serious reservations about the merits of holding public hearings. 

I even included some thoughts about Public Hearings in my 2022 Holiday Greeting Card

26 Days! In the 80s, I lived through many such hearings, including a 26-day PH for the infamous Spetifore Lands. https://www.delta-optimist.com/local-news/looking-back-at-the-tdl-plans-defeat-30-years-later-3104909. It is the longest hearing ever held in Canada. As noted in this 2019 retrospective article,  

"In an interview a decade later, Michael Geller, who was brought in to devise the plan and marshal it through the approval process, called the hearing a watershed in Canadian planning.

“To their credit, the Tsawwassen community waged the most articulate and organized opposition on private property in Canada,” he said.

Lifelong Delta resident Doug Husband, who was mayor during that time, said it was a challenge trying to cover all the legal bases and navigate a process that appeared destined to have just one result.

“David Strangway was the president of UBC and he came out to see me before the public hearing took place and he said, ‘I just want you to know I have a number of my professors living in Tsawwassen and they are going to make this public hearing the most high-profile public hearing you’re ever going to be involved in. It has nothing to do with single-family developments and traffic and density and all those things. It’s going to be about the environment and First Nations’ issues,’” Husband recently told the Optimist.

After the Federal Minister of the Environment proposed a moratorium to stop the development we held a press conference on the property. It was the first, and last time I used a bale of hay as a podium!

“That’s what they did, they brought up the Lummi Indian Band to speak about how it was sacred land. They had the minister of environment say there should be no development on this land until such time as there is an environmental study. That was Lucien Bouchard, so they flew him out and had him stand on the banks of the Boundary Bay area. It was absolutely quite phenomenal. It was highly organized and I give them great credit for being able to do that, but we had about 8,000 written submissions during the course of that hearing, even as far away as Germany, about saving the flyway and protecting the birds,” he recalled."

Last night's Public Hearing was not as dramatic or lengthy. Some thoughtful comments were made both in favour and opposition to the proposals, especially the building that most offended me on West 14th between Arbutus and Yew. 

The meeting began with a city planner providing a brief outline. The mayor then invited the proponent to make a presentation, but he said no. He was there to answer any questions. Why didn't he make a presentation? This was highly unusual, but I think you'll find the answer later in this post.

Most of the people who I knew were in opposition to the project did not speak at the hearing. After all, I could only see two councillors in the chamber - Mike Klassen and Peter Meizner. If others were there, I apologize for not mentioning you. But thank you for coming.

Others were watching from home. Consequently, there was no longer the opportunity for meaningful exchanges between the politicians and speakers like there often was in the past. 

Fortunately the city has made all the written comments available online in a readable form.

You can find some of the opposition comments, including those by Mike Harcourt, architects Sean McEwen and Peter Busby, and me here. 

https://council.vancouver.ca/20241112/documents/phea6opposed20241112-redacted.pdf

You can also read the comments by Kin Chong, a structural engineer who lives nearby. He listed what he considered numerous practical and safety challenges of building a highrise tower on a sloping site on a narrow and constricted street such as this. 

He observed, perhaps correctly, that the promise to keep all the mature trees would be impossible to keep. After all, the contractor would need to cut down these trees to properly install the crane in a safe and secure manner in such a constricted location. Given the recent accidents with cranes, I found myself thinking maybe he is right.  

Below is a link to just a few of the comments from those in favour of the tower proposal. I say just a few since earlier in the day 242 letters in favour of the application were 'dumped' into the system thanks to the YIMBY organization (YES In My Back Yard) although few, if any of these writers lived on the street where the building was proposed. 

https://council.vancouver.ca/20241112/documents/phea6support20241112-redacted.pdf

This is just one of the letters you will find here:

"Stop letting these NIMBYS with too much time on their hands decide everything simply because they go to these meetings. Vancouver is in desperate need of more housing. These NIMBYS do not care about anyone but them. Its time for NIMBY culture to go away. Please build more housing. I cannot afford the current housing that is built in this city."  

I watched the Public Hearing at the same time as I watched the Canucks hockey game. At times, I wasn't sure what was more depressing. 

When one housing advocate spoke for the third time in favour of build, build, build, regardless of neighbourhood impacts, after all, we're in a housing crisis, fortunately I could mute my computer and turn up the hockey sound. (I suspected some of the councillors may have been doing the same.)

This speaker upset me when she criticized opponents for saying apartments shouldn't be built on side streets. In fact, not one person ever wrote or said that about this proposal. What most were saying was that an ugly 17-storey apartment building, that was 10 times the size of the adjacent homes and completely out of character, should not be built in the middle of this particular block. There were many more suitable locations for towers within the Broadway Plan.

Fortunately, I was pleased to hear the last speaker. He happened to be a developer who lived immediately next door to the proposed development. He said something I had hesitantly included in my written comments, namely this was not a well-though out proposal from a capable, experienced developer. 

The truth was this proponent was a poorly financed land speculator who had only optioned the properties hoping to get rezoning approval so that he could flip the properties to someone else. He had no intention of building the project. He was trying to do the same with two other proposals elsewhere along the corridor.

Since he was the last speaker, the mayor invited the applicant to have the last word. So what did he have to say in response to all the negative comments, especially those by the last speaker? Nothing. 

I found it incredible that he did not at least thank all the people who came out to speak both in favour or opposition of his proposal. We always do that!

As a minimum, he should have offered some response to the allegation he had not been able to arrange any financing since he was simply speculating on the land. 

As I noted in my written comments, (see below) perhaps this is why the suites were so poorly designed. Why waste time and money on refining them if you have no intention of proceeding with the building? (See my previous post).

Hopefully, all the councillors who watched this meeting and read the comments pro and against will have the good sense to reject this project. As several speakers correctly noted there are many better tower proposals coming forward in much more suitable locations. Why approve this one just because it is on the top of the pile? 

Especially when the applicant is not an experienced developer; he doesn't own the property; the design is awful and completely out of scale and character with the neighbourhood; the suites are not designed to be livable especially for lower income families with children. 

Surely this is why the city is even considering this proposal and forgiving $2,557,098 in Development Cost Levies. 

Now as for the Canucks, Vancouver had just three shots in each of the first two periods.

Here are my written comments about the proposal

While I have been a longstanding supporter of higher density and taller buildings, as an architect, planner, real estate consultant and developer, I strongly oppose this application for many reasons. 

1. While staff claim the design conforms with the Broadway Plan, at an FSR 10 times the adjacent homes, and 7 times their height, the building is completely out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood. 

This illustration highlights the fact that the developer and architect don’t want the building to fit in. And it doesn’t and is not likely to ever fit in if approved as proposed.

2. While staff correctly note the form and massing conform with the Broadway Plan, they do not mention that the height and density significantly exceed what would be permitted by the Transit Oriented Area zoning guidelines which designate this area for 3.0 FSR and 8 storeys. 

3. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this is not an attractive building. The developer claims "Located in a quiet, calm, tree-lined neighbourhood, this building has been designed to integrate seamlessly into the community." This is patently absurd. The building is totally out of character with Kitsilano. 

These balconies are drawn to appear like they are 12 feet deep. In fact, they are less than 6 feet which is the minimum depth to be truly usable.

4. A careful review of the drawings reveals a combination of deception and dishonesty. The adjacent homes, with their pitched roofs, are drawn as blocks. The shadows are drawn as if the sun is in the north, not the south. The balconies are drawn to appear significantly deeper than their actual depth. 

I know that this unit will not be livable for a family with children. Yes, it has three bedrooms and two bathrooms. But there is no entry closet, no linen or broom closets, the kitchen has virtually no cupboard space. There isn’t even space for a normal-sized dishwasher. 

5. As the former CMHC architect overseeing the social housing programs, I know that the 2 and 3 bedroom units will not be livable for a family with children. The kitchen is little more than a kitchenette, with a half-sized dishwasher and few drawers. While this might be fine for millenials who will eat out or order in, it's inappropriate for a family with children who may livetheir for many years. 

While the two and three bedroom units have two bathrooms, presumably for marketing reasons, there are no entry closets, no built-in bedroom closets, no linen or broom closets, There are no closets in the bedrooms. There is no washer or dryer, which one has come to expect. There isn't even a communal laundry room in the building 

Why this lack of attention to detail? Because the developer most likely does not intend to build this project. He doesn't own the land. There are no previous developments illustrated on the developer's website. He wants to get a rezoning approval for this and two other assemblies along the Broadway Corridor so he can flip the properties. 

If Council feels it must approve this application since it "conforms with the Broadway Plan", at least impose conditions to direct the architect to revise the design so that it looks like Kitsilano, not Dubai. 

Reduce the height and density to that set out in the Transit Oriented Area zoning requirements. And given all the financial benefits being offered the developer, demand that the family units be revised to be livable for families with children. 

And then impose a moratorium so we can collectively discuss how to improve the Broadway Plan since this application clearly demonstrates it is broken.

Broadway Plan: Why am I worrying about neighbourhood character when we have a housing crisis?

The Public Hearing for three Broadway Plan towers continues tonight.

Above is an illustration of the proposal at 2156-2172 West 14th which I find most objectionable. In my opinion, buildings like this, in the middle of a lovely, leafy street lined with charming older homes, duplexes, triplexes, will seriously harm the character of surrounding neighbourhoods.

Often when I say or write this, people respond by asking why am I worrying about neighbourhood character when we have a housing crisis, ?

Well, if I thought building a lot of 18 storey buildings would solve the housing crisis, I might be less concerned. But I know, and many of my colleagues know that all these towers will do little to solve the housing crisis. But they will do serious damage to the surrounding neighbourhood character, and upset the lives of lower income seniors, families, and others living in the older buildings thar will be demolished to make way for the towers. So why is this happening? I'm afraid it's a fault in the Broadway Plan.

While I support higher density, highrise buildings near transit stations, there are many things wrong with this aspect of The Broadway Plan.

• When the plan was initially approved, so much attention was given to protection of existing renters few people realized the plan didn't just apply to Broadway; it stretched from 1st avenue in the north, to 16th avenue in the south.

• Many of these streets in Kitsilano, Fairview and Mount Pleasant, are quite lovely, with a broad mix of rental and ownership housing choices - duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings.
  

• Sadly, the plan calls for an urban renewal of these streets with 17-20 storey towers, and new, larger multi-family buildings in between. Of course, some of the existing buildings will remain. The hope is that all this new housing, especially the towers which will be100% rental, will provide new affordable rental housing.
  

• It will, to some degree. 20% of the units in the towers are to be below market. Existing tenants will have the right to move back into these towers at the same rent they are paying now. This sounds fantastic. But will it really happen? That remains to be seen. A bigger question is, notwithstanding the tenant protection measures, where will all the people being evicted move in the interim?

• Another question is just how many more below market units will be built and how will they compare with what's there now?

• What is already obvious to me is that many of the new apartments will not be as livable as the existing apartments. Sure, they'll be new, but they'll be much smaller. Based on the plans for one of the projects going to Public Hearing tonight, they won't be very livable. Why do I write this? Just look at the layout of this two-bedroom suite.

• While it has two bedrooms and two bathrooms, do you see an entry closet?  Any built-in bedroom closets? A linen or broom closet? Storage? 

• Now let's look at the kitchen. What's that tiny space beside the sink? There's hardly room for a dishwasher. So where are the drawers? The cupboards? Yes, there's one under the sink. And that might be a pantry, but that's not a functional kitchen layout for a family with children. By the way, where is the washer and dryer?

• 
  
  
• Here's the 3-bedroom version, likely for a family with two or three children. Yes, this one has a storage room - the space is excluded from the floor space area FSR calculations - this is useful space since once again, there's no entry closet, no built-in bedroom closets, a tiny kitchenette and again, no washer and dryer. What's going on here?
• 
  
• Another absurdity is that this design is not just for the affordable housing. It appears to be the design for the market rental housing as well. Urban land economists and developers expect units like this will have to rent for $5.50+ per sq.ft. per month. That's $4,000 per month and more, plus parking, if there is parking, for this suite.

• To be honest, I'm less concerned about this since market tenants paying $4000 plus per month can move. The lower income households who are lucky enough to get a below-market unit, even one with no closets and a tiny kitchen don't have the choice.

• So. please tell me. Why are we potentially destroying, yes destroying the character and quality of West 14th between Arbutus and Yew to build this awful building, that looks like it belongs in Dubai, not Kitsilano? And doing the same for many other streets in Kitsilano, Fairview and Mount Pleasant? Please tell me.

So what's the solution? I hope Council will listen to the concerns, not just from those who might be considered NIMBYs, but also all the planning professionals who know this is wrong. Hopefully, it will agree that a moratorium on new towers more than 2 blocks away from Broadway is warranted, so that the plan can be modified to allow a different type of densification of these streets. There is plenty of opportunity to build new housing. Maintaining the status quo is not an option. But neither is a proliferation of towers off Broadway.

Overwhelming Density for the sake of Assumed Affordability #1 -CITY HALL WATCH November 9, 2024 - Precis of Carole Taylor Interview and related articles

B.C’s Housing Conundrum Carole Taylor – interview with Michael Geller covers housing policy, Broadway Plan, Kitsilano tower rezonings (including one going to Public Hearing Nov 12).

Posted on November 9, 2024 by urbanizta

Preamble: November 2024 is a crucial month for housing in Vancouver, particularly regarding the Broadway Plan. This interview with Michael Geller by Carole Taylor covers many crucial points and is very timely. Please read on, and watch the interview.

Over the course of her career, veteran journalist and politician Carole Taylor has covered the major issues of Canadian and global affairs. Carole Taylor’s Journal (http://www.caroletaylorsjournal.ca) is “a public affairs dialogue that digs deep into the most pressing issues of our times.” In the view of CityHallWatch, it is highly recommended, with great guest interviews. On October 3, 2024, prior to the October 19 provincial election, she hosted Michael Geller, architect, as part of a series on B.C’s Housing Conundrum. Watch the whole interview on YouTube. Below, we have provided bullet points summarizing his comments on the controversial Broadway Plan, which is picking up steam and is set to be turbocharged (possibly on November 26, 2024). Petitions calling for a Rethink of the Broadway Plan have thousands of signatures (see https://www.change.org/p/rethink-the-broadway-plan). A massive rally is planned for City Hall at 1 pm on Saturday, November 23 (details pending). Several Broadway Plan tower rezonings go to Public Hearing this month (see list below).

BC’s Housing Conundrum (w/ Michael Geller, architect) – Carole Taylor’s Journal

Above is the YouTube of the 3-Oct-2024 “BC’s Housing Conundrum” series interview with Michael Geller, architect, on Carole Taylor’s Journal.

Next below is a list of rezonings in November under the Broadway Plan, followed by bullet points of Carole Taylor’s interview with Michael Geller (with huge thanks to volunteer Josh for summarizing the points). This episode focused on provincial housing initiatives, chiefly the political decision of the BC NDP provincial government to override the municipal responsibility for zoning, mention of an example of much tauted L2 rental project that went so far astray, and the Broadway Plan in Vancouver, with special reference to an 18-storey tower proposed at 2156-2174 West 14th Avenue (going to Public Hearing on 12-Nov-2024).

List of Broadway Plan tower rezonings in November 2024 alone.

• On November 12 (link for agenda) there’s 3983-3991 West 10th Ave, 888 West Broadway (formerly 878-898 West Broadway), 523-549 East 10th Ave, 701 Kingsway, 2156-2174 West 14th Ave (18-storeys on a quiet side street), and 2175 West 7th Ave (demoviction of affordable rentals).
• Another Public Hearing will be held on November 26 (link here, but agenda not yet posted) as of Nov 9). Check back here for list. Likely to include 1960 West 7th Ave.
• Meanwhile, the Regular Council of November 12 (agenda link) will receive referral reports for three more tower projects in the Broadway Plan area, including 1726 West 11th Ave, 8 East Broadway (text amendment, formerly 2-24 East Broadway and 2520 Ontario Street), and 1365 West 12th Ave.
• CityHallWatch has covered many of these projects. Copy/paste the address in our search field to find articles.
• For an updated map of 100-150 projects in the pipeline in the Broadway Plan area, compiled by CityHallWatch (and going far beyond what the City has announced publicly) see our updated “Maps of Broadway Plan rezoning applications.”
• We note that the City Manager is far past his deadline for providing a memo to Council with his quarterly update on Broadway Plan Implementation, which was due in October.

*************

Below are bullet points summarizing Michael Geller in the October 3, 2024, interview on Carole Taylor’s Journal.

• Question: With all of the initiatives from the provincial government, overriding municipal rights to re-zoning, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
  • The intentions are good. Encouraging small scale, multi-unit housing is terrific, but the implementation is too heavy handed.
    • The notion that every single-family lot in communities larger than 5,000 square feet should be eligible for a 4-6 unit development is over-reach. Geller agrees with those who feel that communities don’t have sufficient infrastructure to support such developments (e.g., no parking).

• Topic: There is a large building going up on Larch Street [see CityHallWatch post “Unaffordable Kitsilano rental project draws intense media scrutiny“], controversial because it’s draw was the inclusion of 20% affordable rental units. 
  • Having looked at the plans, Geller feels the affordable rental units are virtually unlivable, simply too small.
    • Certain minimum standards should be maintained. Everyone is welcome to live in a small space, if they have choice, but being forced into a such a small space due to housing scarcity isn’t choice.
  • Geller feels politicians are being seduced to approve buildings that shouldn’t be approved, just to get the 20% below market rental units.

• If you look at cost benefit analysis, the government benefits granted to developers in the form of subsides fail to outweigh the positive impact of developer’s affordable housing initiatives.

In the case of Larch Street, the developer [Jameson] received:

1. A density bonus from the City
2. A wavier on development cost charges
3. Then after the development was approved, the provincial government offered a beneficial financing rate for the project and a high ratio loan

• Q: What are your ideas for how to get more low rent units built?
  • Geller would revert to developments funded by nonprofit societies, allowing those buildings to operate with a mix of government subsidies.
  • This way, you get more value for money, when compared to developments that are 20% affordable, 80% market value.
    • In fact, on top of supporting the 20% below mark units, government subsidies are contributing for a portion of the 80% market value units. Paradoxically, this can lift the price of new and existing housing.

• Often times the concession and subsidies granted to developers are predicated on rental units aligning with provincial regulations which promote affordability.
  • However, several years later these regulations may change, and units designated as affordable start to be treated no differently than market value units. When one tenant leaves, the unit price is raised.

• Topic: The new provincial zoning regulations allowing for high-density development along transit corridors are causing discontent amongst affected communities [see CityHallWatch post – “‘Transit-Oriented Development’ (TOD) maps” and “Undemocratic BC Bills should be rescinded“]
  • Geller feels the City needs to put a moratorium on allowing 18 story towers on duplex lined streets (whether in Mount Pleasant or Kitsilano).

• Geller notes there exists a widespread idea at the City council level that density will result in affordability. This notion is a myth, he says.
  • Developers buy land by the square foot, and the price of land is set by how it’s zoned. Properties zoned for more square footage net a higher price.
  • There are developers operating along the Broadway corridor who are seeking 80/20 buildings approvals, only to flip the package to a different developer for a premium. In turn, heightening costs.

• With the exception of a few Vancouver City Planners, most people missed the consequences of the Broadway plan when it was initially passed [June 2022, and went into force based on a motion by then mayor Kennedy Stewart on 1-Sept-2022, pre-empting the Oct 2022 civic election].
  • At this time, Geller feels the council needs to be convinced to hold on approving high-density developments in duplex zones, such as the proposed development at 14th between Arbutus and Yew. [Pubic hearing Nov 12, 2024, link here]
    • Studies need to be conducted on such areas first, to assess the potential impacts.
    • Approving an 18-story building where it doesn’t belong sets a bad precedent. 

• Geller notes, nothing is set in stone. Depending on the outcome of the October 19, 2024, election [in which David Eby’s NPD government won a bare majority, with 47 seats the minimum required for a majority] things could change dramatically.

• Geller feels the best approach to addressing affordable housing is increasing incomes and stimulating economic activity, then targeting social housing dollars is the ultimately the way to go.

*************

RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE FEATURING COMMENTS BY MICHAEL GELLER – BROADWAY PLAN, 18-STOREY TOWER IN DUPLEX ZONE ON 14TH AND YEW, ETC.

Vancouver’s Kitsilano neighbourhood braces for 23 new towers – Developers are targeting the beachside Kitsilano neighbourhood now that the Broadway plan has opened up the construction floodgates (Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun, 08-Oct-2024). Link: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/kitsilano-neighbourhood-braces-23-new-towers

Letter: Changes need to be made to ‘flawed’ Broadway Plan. “After five decades trying to create affordable housing in the public and private sectors, I have learned that while it is difficult to create affordable housing without density, higher densities do not always equate to affordable housing.” (Michael Geller, Vancouver Is Awesome, 8-Mar-2024). [In the article, critiques the tower proposal at 2156 – 2172 West 14th Ave “a lovely leafy street lined with attractive duplexes” and points out two similar buildings proposed by HAVN on Carolina Street and Manitoba Street. He shreds the financials of the project.] Link: https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/opinion/letter-changes-need-to-be-made-to-flawed-broadway-plan-8414313

Michael Geller: Some personal musings on the Broadway Plan (Michael Geller, The Georgia Straight, 22-Apr-2024) Link: https://www.straight.com/news/michael-geller-some-personal-musings-on-broadway-plan

18-storey Kitsilano rental housing tower proposed near SkyTrain’s future Arbutus Station (Kenneth Chan, The Daily Hive – Urbanized, 19-Dec, 2023) https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/2156-2172-west-14th-avenue-vancouver-rental-tower-havn

Share this: