[HN Gopher] B.C. looks to standardize multiplex designs as lates...
___________________________________________________________________
B.C. looks to standardize multiplex designs as latest fix to
housing crisis
Author : cf100clunk
Score : 47 points
Date : 2023-11-18 18:40 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.todayinbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.todayinbc.com)
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Conceptually related to the recent ''L.A. Dingbats'' discussion:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=38252918
| lwansbrough wrote:
| For those not up to date on the developments here in BC, there
| are a number of interesting solutions being implemented
| currently:
|
| - Unification of residential zones into a single zone with
| (marginally) higher density, which could make it easier to
| further increase density in the future
|
| - BC Ministry of Housing has brought forth legislation to upzone
| housing in concentric rings of decreasing density around transit
| stations, with allowable minimums up to 20 stories in the nearest
| ring, where in many cases single family homes currently stand.
|
| - Senakw development: native land still under control by a local
| native tribe is not subject to housing bylaws and is now being
| developed into several large towers (without parking
| requirements!)
|
| - An even larger development has been proposed using the same
| land rights on the Jericho lands just west of Senakw, which
| proposes around 10,000 new homes and a new subway station which
| would count as another transit station for nearby development of
| what is currently extremely underutilized land.
|
| - This new BC special, although I've heard it may not be
| automatically applicable to Vancouver because Vancouver has
| special privileges to enforce its own building code (?)
| epistasis wrote:
| The ~Senakw~ Squamish Nation are literally my heroes. They are
| doing amazing things to push back on terrible reactionary
| planning in Vancouver that has made it unaffordable to entire
| generations of people, merely to satisfy a few people who want
| high property valuations and have an antisocial attitude of not
| wanting to see other people. Such people should simply choose
| to live somewhere other than a huge city, and should stop
| trying to prevent others from living as they wish to.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| I would be very much in favour of returning more land back to
| our local tribes if this is how it would be used. Seems like
| a great loophole to get around offensively poor city
| planning.
| asploder wrote:
| I couldn't agree more with your enthusiasm, but it's worth
| noting that Senakw is the name of the development, and the
| Squamish Nation are the people backing it.
|
| More details on the Senakw development are available from the
| Squamish Nation's website: https://senakw.com/
| epistasis wrote:
| Oops, thanks! I've been following Khelsilem for a while but
| do not live near the area, and have only visited several
| times. Would love to live there eventually if prices fall a
| bit.
| dagmx wrote:
| I'm really hopeful about the higher density housing around
| transit. Vancouver's housing crisis is always juxtaposed by so
| many derelict Vancouver Special homes just sitting around , and
| swathes of area just being unused
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| Even today you can take the expo line from Metrotown to New
| west and there are vast swaths of single family homes around
| stations like royal oak. They just started building more
| density around there lately, but the expo line is 37 years
| old and the municipality is just starting to build up around
| the skytrain stations.
|
| It would be interesting if the standardized buildings could
| somewhat be pre-fabbed offsite, I would imagine that would
| significantly reduce building costs. That doesn't fix the
| problem where a single city sized lot in Vancouver costs over
| 1.5 million dollars, but if you ammortize that over 3
| separate dwellings the land cost becomes more affordable for
| professionals.
| cperciva wrote:
| FWIW, most of the empty Vancouver Specials are just awaiting
| permits -- either for demolition, or for the construction
| which will replace them. (Developers don't want to pay now to
| clear land they won't be able to build on until later, so
| they wait until they're close to approval for higher density
| housing before they demolish SFHs.)
| voisin wrote:
| > Unification of residential zones into a single zone with
| (marginally) higher density, which could make it easier to
| further increase density in the future
|
| Isn't it going to be BC-wide (except for towns below 5,000
| people, or where the vacancy rate is above 5%) that every lot
| will now "as of right" allow for a minimum of 3 dwelling units
| per lot, growing to 4 when the lot is a certain size, and then
| up to 6 if the lot is even larger?
|
| To me that's a big step up (3-6x current density!).
| bardak wrote:
| Yeah it is almost entirely province wide and pretty much
| every lot is going to be allowed to have 4 dwellings on it.
| Only the smallest lots (<280m^2 or <3000sqft) will be limited
| to 3 dwellings. The 6 dwelling regulations are still to come
| but I am optimistic they will be pretty permissive.
|
| The other thing that I think a lot of people are glossing
| over is the requirement for the municipalities to plan and
| rezone for 20 years of growth every 5 years. No more having
| to apply for rezoning for a project that is in line with what
| the cities have planned.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| For the developments on First Nations lands, will those housing
| units be open to all or just band members? If the former, how
| do the legal aspects work for those who are not members of that
| band? I always got the impression that First Nations land, even
| inside of cities, were mainly populated with members of that
| band.
| bardak wrote:
| I believe that the units will all be market rentals but it is
| not uncommon for urban first nation bands to sell leasehold
| housing on their land as they cannot sell the land outright
| as per the Indian Act.
|
| It gets a lot more complicated when you delve into bands such
| that the Tsawwassen First Nation who have new modern treaties
| and don't fall under the Indian Act but they are more of an
| exception.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| In terms of rentals, yes. If there is any sales it is usually
| leasehold as the other comment mentioned. You typically also
| see a portion of units allocated for non-market
| accommodations for first nations people, as is this case for
| Senakw if I recall correctly.
| bawolff wrote:
| > Senakw development: native land still under control by a
| local native tribe is not subject to housing bylaws and is now
| being developed into several large towers (without parking
| requirements!)
|
| Huh, interesting. Is the plan that people who live there just
| won't have cars?
| owenwil wrote:
| Ideally, yes--it's very close to downtown and accessible by
| public transit. A lot of people in cities don't need or want
| cars, and this type of development will attract them because
| it's likely to be cheaper than an equivalent with a parking
| space.
|
| People here _might_ own cars, but it's up to them to find
| parking and pay for it themselves, rather than building it
| into the cost of buying /renting for everyone in these
| buildings--building without minimums means much cheaper
| building costs. It's working in other cities where it's being
| deployed and is a great way to incentivize cities to invest
| in car alternatives.
| gustavus wrote:
| > The province is looking to select a consultant to create a
| selection of standardized designs for small-scale, multi-unit
| homes, such as townhomes, triplexes and laneway homes, Housing
| Minister Ravi Kahlon announced Thursday (Nov. 16).
|
| This seems to be the closest one could get to do nothing while
| still technically doing something. You do not need to hire an
| expensive consultant. We have been building duplexes and
| triplexes and quadplexs for decades.
|
| This is going to be some lightly disguised graft mark my words.
| They will spend hundreds of thousands on this consultant to
| produce a plan of whicht they will make 10 and then forget about
| when the next charlatan or conman comes into town.
|
| You know what they really need is a monorail.
| bardak wrote:
| The biggest legislative changes that preceded this is rezoning
| practically every single family lot to allow 4-plexes by right
| so that some charlatan can't come by and stop you from building
| it. This is just creating affordable preapprove designs to make
| it easier to take advantage of the rezoning.
|
| The government is also forcing rezoning around transit stations
| and bus exchanges for much higher densities with heights of
| between 8-20 stories (or higher based on municipal planning)
| allowed within 800m.
|
| While not a monorail there is a 16km elevated train extension
| going on in the suburbs
| cperciva wrote:
| _According to the Vancouver Heritage Foundation, Vancouver
| Specials are "front-gabled, two-storey boxy built on grade with
| very shallow-pitched roofs."_
|
| Technically below-grade: The Vancouver Special originated as a
| hack in zoning bylaws, whereby any floor 18" below grade was as a
| "basement" and didn't count towards the floor area limit,
| allowing larger houses than were otherwise permitted.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Feels like some kind of hoarder stressing about all their boxes
| being filled up with stuff, while at the same time continuing to
| acquire more stuff. Sure, you can keep buying more boxes forever,
| but have you considered accumulating less stuff? A reasonable
| solution probably includes both.
| _kst_ wrote:
| I suggest updating the title to say "British Columbia". (I
| thought it might be Baja California.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-18 23:01 UTC)