Article Categories
Archives (2003-13)
Recent Articles
Recent Episodes
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
It would be interesting to do a comparison between Seattle and Metro Vancouver on the relative success at staying inside the lines. I suspect the contrast will be stark, notwithstanding the relative poor performance of the regional centres part of the LRSP. By way of comparison, Greater Victoria has had a regional growth strategy – and an urban containment boundary – since 2003, currently up for its five year review. How has it performed against its targets? The RGS set an ambitious target of containing 90% of all new dwelling units within the UCB, and that the City of Victoria capture a minimum 15% share of all annual new dwelling unit growth. The most recent CRD monitoring report indicates success on both these measures, with 90% of all new dwelling units constructed between 2001 and 2005 located within the UCB, and the City of Victoria actually exceeding its target and accommodating 22% of the region’s new dwelling units during this same period. It should be noted that during this time there has been no expansion of the urban containment boundary.
If there’s a simple problem with this type of planning it’s that it completely and totally ignores prices. Rather like soviet central planning of old, goals and targets are expressed in terms of volumes of output or capacity, but there is no mention made of prices. If the urban containment boundaries didn’t hold, perhaps it’s because purchasers found prices inside the containment boundary too high for the quality of the product on offer.
Intelligent planning should recognize that the consumer is the final arbiter of what passes muster and what goes by the wayside, and that these consumers are responsible for managing their own household budgets, not for meeting civic planning goals. If the planners and the politicos are serious, they will make sure the density elements in their plans have a robust impact on pricing, putting enough product on the market so that prices are attractive. Then the consumer will be happy to ratify the plan in their home purchase decision.