Fight the Height, loons in Vancouver

[dumpthemonarchy]

A good example of the loonie left in Vancouver. How the height of building is ideological is beyond me. What developers ought to be forced to do is have social housing as part of their developments or contribute to a fund to building more social housing for homeless and many working people like co-ops. Vancouver is one of the most expensive cities in the world and some innovative ideas need to be explored.

Get a load of the figures hanging from nooses. Nuts. I would guess it is supposed to fuel west side fear of the downtown east side.

Fight the Height: Condos Are Killing Us | Vancouver Media Co-op

Fight the Height: Condos Are Killing Us

DNC Action Against the Condo Towers Plan

1:00pm
Thursday January 20 2011

Venue: Carnegie Centre at 1pm / City Hall at 2pm

Address: Main and Hastings / 12th and Cambie

Cost: No Cost


DNC Leaflet Text: The City wants to lift building height limits in the DTES for even more condos – speeding displacement and the destruction of our community. Come make your voice count: Thursday, Jan. 20, City Hall, 2 pm
City of Vancouver Text:

Historic Area Height Review Update: Policy Implementation

UPCOMING COUNCIL MEETING: JANUARY 20, 2011, 2:00pm

On January 26, 2010, Council made decisions on height and related matters in the Historic Area (Gastown, Chinatown, Victory Square, Main and Hastings) and directed staff to bring forward implementing policy and by-law amendments to formalize their decisions as well as report back on other requested work. In response, staff will bring forward a report entitled “Historic Area Height Review: Policy Implementation” to the Standing Committee on Planning & Environment on Thursday, January 20, 2011. This report is now available for viewing on the Planning Department's website, at the following link:

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/hahr/HAHR Policy Implementation Report (RTS 8578).pdf
This Historic Area Height Review report will be considered by Council along with the recommendations of the related study "Vancouver Views" and Opportunities for Higher Buildings in the Downtown. Staff will provide a joint presentation on the two reports and Council will hear from public delegations on both items before making a decision.

You can find out more about the Historic Area Height Review and the Vancouver Views study, including a summary of Council's decisions from their January 26, 2010 meeting, at the following websites:
Historic Area Height Review: http://vancouver.ca/hahr
Vancouver Views: http://vancouver.ca/views
Should you wish to speak to Council on these matters at the January 20, 2011 meeting, please contact Tina Hildebrandt in the City Clerk's office at tel: 604.873.7268 or by email at tina.hildebrandt@vancouver.ca
Organizer: Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood Council – DNC




Join the Vancouver Media Co-op today. Click here to learn about the benefits of membership.
Share

 

[Trotz]

Let's blame the Chinese! It's what all the white people in Vancouver do....

Even though the typical real estate flipper is actually white, a middle class professional and between the ages of 40 and 60. We don't need innovative solutions to fix these problems but rather government solutions. Make it criminal to sell a home or condo unless you have resided in one for two years and make it illegal to possess more than 2 dwellings in the Lowermainland.

The housing bubble would explode overnight.
Of course we will never hear these ideas coming from the "Peanut Stand NDP", who often care more about social issues in the Fraser Valley than social issues here in Vancouver and Victoria.

 

[Machjo]

One would think the left would welcome a loosening of building height restrictions, seeing that a loosening of such restrictions would make housing more available, thus increasing its supply in relation to demand, and anyone who knows about the simple laws of supply and demand could see that this would likely help to bring housing prices down. It sounds more like they're more concerned about protecting maintaining their own high-priced property values and disguising it as some kind of left-wing political issue and aren't too concerned about actually making housing available.

 

[bill barilko]

So all three of you live here in Vancouver like me?

 

[Trotz]

I have lived in Vancouver but often traveling and work will translate to me downgrading to elsewhere in the greater metro region.
We still need better housing options and transit infastructure in the metro region.

 

[Machjo]

So all three of you live here in Vancouver like me?

No I don't, but it's a no-brainer that if you restrict supply, you'll put an upward pressure on the cost. Loosening height restrictions essentially restricts supply, ergo it will put upward pressure on prices. Basic economics there. so if the goal is to create affordable housing, you naturally want to loosen artificial restrictions on supply.

Unless there's something I'm missing here?

 

[damngrumpy]

Actually I do not blame the Chinese or anyone else for problems that result from bad planning.
For years places like Vancouver and Kelowna have built in a scattered fashion that does not
lend itself to traffic patterns, viable community infrastructure, or pricing. We all jumped up and
down and encouraged the world to come here while wearing maple leaf red mittens. Remember
that? Now that people want to come here we blame them.
Where does the blame really lie? It rests with lazy people who live in these communities that
just let their municipal governments do what ever they like without speaking up. When that does
happen, over time city officials elected or other wise feel it is their right to do what they want.
I also blame developers, and city planners, and those in the Real Estate Industry, that lobby for
their own interests at the expense of everyone else.
We need to build up because the cities and towns are growing and there will be all kinds of other
issues if we don't. Transportation, water, and other social conditions that need to be addressed,
and they can be if development is done properly. I am not against development it brings jobs and
provides people with living wages and amenities. However if the building is not subject to some
rules and conditions, and proper checks and balances we all end up with leaky condos and
substandard infrastructure. The question then becomes How high is too High?
The size and density of neighbourhoods must be considered, social infrastructure must be there
for quality of life, and there must in my view be a mixture of economic classes in a community.
Here in Kelowna we have gated communities, and it is equally bad to have Ungated Communities
based solely on wealth.
Developers should have to provide a certain amount of affordable housing, and never mind this little
fund they pay into to compensate for not doing so. Conditions should also apply that affordable housing
cannot just be flipped and so on, it should be there for the purpose it was intended. Again though,
what is considered affordable? The problem we face, is that if we face a serious economic downturn
none of us may qualify for affordable housing. High rise buildings should be limited at some point
and the height question should ultimately be determined by the citizens who live in these neighbourhoods,
not by city officials alone nor by the developers who will sack up their money and leave not having to
live in the community they created.

 

[Machjo]

I have lived in Vancouver but often traveling and work will translate to me downgrading to elsewhere in the greater metro region.
We still need better housing options and transit infastructure in the metro region.

Can you define 'better'? It's a very subjective term. It can mean many different things to different people.

 

[taxslave]

There are two options if the population is to grow. It can either go up or out into the farm land. Take your pick.

 

[petros]

Would you spend $1.2M on a view condo only to have your view eliminated? You wouldn't be able to sell it for pesos let alone CDN money.

 

[Machjo]

High rise buildings should be limited at some point
and the height question should ultimately be determined by the citizens who live in these neighbourhoods,
not by city officials alone nor by the developers who will sack up their money and leave not having to
live in the community they created.

I agree with the bolded part only to a degree. Should the locals be allowed for instance to prohibit local businesses from hiring from neighbouring so as to benefit themselves at the expense of others just trying to make a livelihood? At that stage it would come down to democracy degenerating into mob rule, with the majority manipulating policy to benefit themselves unfairly at the expense of the minority.

Looking at it that way, I'd say that if capping building heights can push housing prices upward and thus make affordable housing even less accessible just to make life easier for those who are lucky enough to be able to afford housing is an abuse of political power. I'm not much for government interfering in the economy to any extreme degree to help the poor, but I'm even more vehemently opposed to government meddling in the economy so as to hurt the poor. While government meddling in favour of the poor could at least be a valid topic for debate and discussion, government meddling in the free market to hurt the poor should be a no-starter.

Would you spend $1.2M on a view condo only to have your view eliminated? You wouldn't be able to sell it for pesos let alone CDN money.

That's how free markets work. If you want to guarantee the view, then buy up all the property between your apartment and the ocean. It's not up to you to strong arm the government to intervene in the free market to benefit you to the detriment of those who are even less advantaged. As mentioned above, while I'm open to entertaining the idea of government regulation to help or protect the poor, government regulation that hurts the poor should have no place in our society.

There are two options if the population is to grow. It can either go up or out into the farm land. Take your pick.

And if you expand outwards, then people complain about rising food costs and commuting time and transportation costs to work and extra taxes to build and expand transportation infrastructure, etc. And I'm sure those same people who'd want a height cap will oppose helping the poor who are directly affected by this meddling into the free market who then have to spend even more on transport.

I guess one way to look at it is this: society has no obligation towards the poor as long as government policy doesn't hurt the poor. Once government policy is introduced to hurt the poor, then the responsibility to compensate the poor somehow falls directly onto the government's shoulders.

 

[petros]

That's how free markets work. If you want to guarantee the view, then buy up all the property between your apartment and the ocean. It's not up to you to strong arm the government to intervene in the free market to benefit you to the detriment of those who are even less advantaged. As mentioned above, while I'm open to entertaining the idea of government regulation to help or protect the poor, government regulation that hurts the poor should have no place in our society.

No that is how city by-laws work. Height caps and sight lines must be new concepts?

 

[Machjo]

No that is how city by-laws work. Height caps and sight lines must be new concepts?

They're not new concepts, but that doesn't make them good ideas. Height caps reduce the supply of housing in an area, ergo pushing housing prices up and so making housing even less affordable. It's a simple law of supply and demand. If you want to bring housing costs down, you can either reduce demand (convince people that they don't really want a roof over their heads, which could be a marketing challenge to say the least), or increase the supply. Seeing that we're not likely to reduce the demand as long as people don't start growing thick fur all over their bodies, then probably the best solution is to deregulate policies that interfere with the supply. Simple economics here.

Honestly, if anything, I'd expect some rich conservative right-wing group fighting height increases to protect his ocean view and property value, not some left-wing group wanting to make housing affordable to more people.

 

[bill barilko]

Would you spend $1.2M on a view condo only to have your view eliminated? You wouldn't be able to sell it for pesos let alone CDN money.

Not at all true if the building continues and anyway your math is all screwy.

Lesson from Manhattan-no one owns the view.

 

[Trotz]

They're not new concepts, but that doesn't make them good ideas. Height caps reduce the supply of housing in an area, ergo pushing housing prices up and so making housing even less affordable. It's a simple law of supply and demand. If you want to bring housing costs down, you can either reduce demand (convince people that they don't really want a roof over their heads, which could be a marketing challenge to say the least), or increase the supply. Seeing that we're not likely to reduce the demand as long as people don't start growing thick fur all over their bodies, then probably the best solution is to deregulate policies that interfere with the supply. Simple economics here.

Honestly, if anything, I'd expect some rich conservative right-wing group fighting height increases to protect his ocean view and property value, not some left-wing group wanting to make housing affordable to more people.

It's not a political but rather a class issue. It's one of those "only the rich have the luxury of being socialist" kind of realities in western democracies, where immigration isn't promoted for multiculturalism (although that may be the rhetoric) but rather because immigration is associated with increased costs of living, booming real estate values, contracts for corporate welfare and healthcare, et al; all good things if you belong to the top 5% income bracket. Millionaire Jack Layton is probably familiar with all this.

No one wants to see an end to the gravy train that is the Lowermainland

 

[Bar Sinister]

I fail to see what ideology has to do with restricting the height of buildings. Dozens of cities around the world have similar laws and they have far more to do with esthetics than ideology. It has nothing to do with left or right; rather it is part of an effort to prevent uncontrolled building from destroying a city's natural beauty. In a city like Vancouver, which has a spectacular natural setting, such a law probably makes very good sense. Describing it as left wing is an attempt to politicize an issue that is much more about beauty than ideology.

 

[Omicron]

It's because to you life is a fight, and you can't stand sharing the planet with other people.

You think you will get higher up into heaven the more you have made other people's lives worse.

I could organize a work-program where everyone with technical skill in welding, riveting, plumbing, and electricity gets a job building a super-tower surrounded by farmland to be tended by real farmers, where they earn their position on the mile-high tower with their work, with real cooks and real food processors setting out daily feats like the Hutterites, and with real clothing-makers keeping us warm and making us look good.

Do you or do you not want to have your own nation of well fed and happy kids?

I fail to see what ideology has to do with restricting the height of buildings. Dozens of cities around the world have similar laws and they have far more to do with esthetics than ideology. It has nothing to do with left or right; rather it is part of an effort to prevent uncontrolled building from destroying a city's natural beauty. In a city like Vancouver, which has a spectacular natural setting, such a law probably makes very good sense. Describing it as left wing is an attempt to politicize an issue that is much more about beauty than ideology.

He's being a twit not studying how seriously pissed off Americans are getting about things.

It's because to you life is a fight, and you can't stand sharing the planet with other people.

You think you will get higher up into heaven the more you have made other people's lives worse.

I could organize a work-program where everyone with technical skill in welding, riveting, plumbing, and electricity gets a job building a super-tower surrounded by farmland to be tended by real farmers, where they earn their position on the mile-high tower with their work, with real cooks and real food processors setting out daily feats like the Hutterites, and with real clothing-makers keeping us warm and making us look good.

Do you or do you not want to have your own nation of well fed and happy kids?


He's being a twit not studying how seriously pissed off Americans are getting about things.

Yankees let hedge-funds and derivative go unto the dumb-headed, and yes, Canada had better foresight about how things like that can go... I met some of the forecasters blessed with the willpower and authority and ability to protect their country, in spite of the power of the banks in Ottawa... the resistores live in total middle-class conditions in frikkin-frozen Ottawa... mostly sad about how their kids don't visit them enough.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I fail to see what ideology has to do with restricting the height of buildings. Dozens of cities around the world have similar laws and they have far more to do with esthetics than ideology. It has nothing to do with left or right; rather it is part of an effort to prevent uncontrolled building from destroying a city's natural beauty. In a city like Vancouver, which has a spectacular natural setting, such a law probably makes very good sense. Describing it as left wing is an attempt to politicize an issue that is much more about beauty than ideology.

The DTES is a dump, especially around Hastings and Main-which is the poorest postal code in the country. The drug dealing and welfare rates are very high and the drug dealing is done in front of police. Changing the nature of the area is essential. Business, with its ideological blinkers taped on tightly, has inadequate concern about social issues.

Vancouver does not have huge amount of land, it is pinned in by mountains, ocean and saving farmland. Going up makes sense and appears to me, a green solution to a growing population. We're not talking 50 stories, but 10-15 stories. Plus the new buildings will be stronger, many buildings in the DTES are brick and will crumble in a strong earthquake.