I”m off to the Island for a couple of days. So to keep PT readers amused, here are a couple of items from two Michaels – Alexander and Geller – who in the last few days both came up with questions related to zoning, development and urban form. Why not help them out with your own insights. Add to the Comments!
From Michael Alexander:
Let’s use, as a classic example, the Safeway next to the Broadway-Commercial Skytrain. Brent Toderian used to use it as the poster child of poor land use, about which the city apparently could do nothing.
.
Let’s say the land was zoned for a 20-storey building, but Safeway chose to build its usual warehouse-in-a-parking-lot. As I understand it, they have that right, because zoning is a maximum, not a minimum.
.
.
Now it’s 30 years later and land values have appreciated exponentially, so Safeway says, let’s cash this sucker out. They sell to a developer who pays handsomely for the land with the 20-storey zoning, and files a maxed zoning application. The city at last has the TOD it’s been denied for 30 years, the developer is out the market value of the land and zoning, and Safeway has reaped all the benefit.
.
Instead, what if the city had said to Safeway: build low if you like, but you lose whatever part of the zoned FSR (Floor Space Ratio – or density) you don’t use. The city then banks the zoning. Thirty years later, someone buys the property from Safeway, but Safeway can only sell one storey of FSR, and that determines the selling price. The new landowner tells the city she want to build up. Lovely, says the city; you can go to 20 storeys, if you pay us the difference in land value.
.
In other words, Safeway, use it or lose it.
.
Instead of selling, what if Safeway finally develops an urban sensibility and says: City, we want to build up. The city responds, you can go to 20 storeys if you pay us the increase in land value. You didn’t use it? Now you have to buy it back.
.
_______________________________________________
.
From Michael Geller:
.
In a conversation I had this past week at City Hall, planners asked what I thought of allowing higher densities and larger highrise floorplates than have historically been approved in Vancouver. (The floorplate of a building is the area of each floor.)
.
For decades the maximum for a highrise building has been around 570 square meters, which has resulted in Vancouver’s ‘skinny point-block towers’ so often admired by visiting architects and planners. This was the size established for Downtown South, most of Coal Harbour and the North Shore of False Creek. In a typical Vancouver building, approximately 70 square meters of the floorplate is taken up by elevators, stairs, corridors and mechanical shafts. The remaining area can then be divided up into suites. …
.
What prompted the question from the City planners is that they are now being asked to approve increasingly larger floor plates in order to improve building efficiency and affordability. The Planning Department is not just looking at fattening the towers; it is also being asked to consider alternative building forms such as larger double-loaded slab buildings that are so common around Toronto and other cities. 
Unlike Vancouver’s slender point blocks, these buildings can easily be twice or three times the floorplate size and much more efficient and cost effective.
Unlike Vancouver’s slender point blocks, these buildings can easily be twice or three times the floorplate size and much more efficient and cost effective..
I think the time has come for a full public discussion on just how far Vancouver should deviate from its past practices when it comes to building form and density. Should we forego the slender point blocks? Should we permit Toronto sized slab buildings around the city in the name of affordability ?
.
At what point do we trade off the form, massing and appearance of buildings in order to achieve greater ‘sustainability? When is too much density too much?
If you zoned Safeway at a FSR of 1 and then wanted to change that zoning many in the community would be up in arms. viz. the Rize highrise controversy at Main.
And if you lose the Safeway do you start to create a urban food desert?
On the first question: while I expect the city would end up better off in terms of money brought in from new increases in density, I also expect Safeway wouldn’t upzone, but would rather just keep their building the way it is and keep paying taxes for the value based on 1FSR instead of 20FSR. Thus no TOD, no redevelopment. In some cases (and depending on your point of view) this may be a very good thing, in some cases not. But it would drastically alter the development landscape.
On the second question: I don’t think larger floorplates are a bad idea necessarily, but I wonder if the benefits hold true if the building is less tall than a smaller floorplate building. Those large slab buildings are rather impersonal, create much larger shadows and are a much more intrusive style of highrise. Maybe a compromise can be struck that a larger floorplate equals a shorter building.
At the same time, any such buildings should not be built as tower-in-the-park neighbourhoods as in Toronto and other cities, and should not be grouped together to form monolithic, bland ghettos either. The buildings need to relate to the ground level just like any other building, and each building should look different, just like any other building. In the end, if you have too many of the same style of tower, even if it’s a small floorplate, it looks bad, boring, uninteresting, ugly, etc., and negatively impacts the public realm.
Firstly, the Safeway was there well before the SkyTrain.
Secondly, there are plans to redevelop the Safeway property in conjunction with the construction of an additional platform at Broadway Station (for which part of the Safeway site will be acquired). See Page 25, here:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/bpotp/10_year_plan/2012_plans/2012_supplemental_plan_moving_forward.ashx
Thirdly, look to the City itself – as it has not upzoned the Broadway & Commercial area for higher density use (i.e. taller towers, office use). What’s the difference between the Safeway site and the one or two storey retail sites that surround the station? Had the adjacent sites been densified, the Safeway site would likely have followed suit earlier.
Lastly, the bylaw would likely be discriminatory, and therefore, invalid. In upzoning the property, but making it conditional on “build it or lose it” You are discriminating against the class of owners who do not immediately construct a new building to the maximum density. That could also be interpreted as discriminating against owners based on economic standing / resources. i.e. transfer your proposal to the upzoning that has already occurred on the Cambie corridor.
What such a proposal ecourages would be the simultaneous razing of all existing buildings whose demolition and replacement is, at present, economically feasible at the time of the upzoning (or within a grace period).
WRT the second question, larger floorplates, I recall reading that the slab next to the Sylvia Hotel was the one that prompted the City to favour skinnier towers (back in the 1960s or 70s. The purpose being to allow light to filter down to the street and preserve views.
Vancouver does not have a lot of “monolithic” buildings, so it does have a different character than a lot of other cities. Electric Avenue and the Electra come to mind as large slab buildings. Other block long streetwalls are the Canada Post Building, Sears, The Bay, back of the Law Courts and Anchor Point.
Given that much of the downtown is already built out, the number of sites for slab towers is probably quite limited, so it may be OK to allow them.
However, I don’t think they would be appropriate on waterfront sites – such as over the CP tracks on Burrard Inlet or in NEFC (as was proposed in the Beasley viaduct removal competition).
But it may also be a function oof size and massing as well, since a slab that is, say, twice the width of a typical point tower is quite a bit different than one that is an entire block long.
From a suite layout perspective, having a slab would allow daylight well into the back of suites than a fatter point tower would, where you’d have wasted space in long hallways (especially corner suites) or bowling alley layouts. The Electra condo (former BC Hydro Building) has very bright and shallow efficient layouts due to the skinny slab tower floorplate.
The effect on the suites themselves is something I neglected to mention and should have. Having lived in a shorter slab building, I found the suite was much more liveable, more light-filled (despite not having wall-to-ceiling windows) and more efficient use of space than many of the point-tower type condos I’ve visited. The layout was much more like a small rectangular house than some of the bizarre shapes you get in point towers. It’s worth noting.
No food desert, because there are a plethora of nearby small groceries and produce markets a few blocks up (and down) on Commercial. Just because it’s not a continent-scale mega-chain, doesn’t mean it doesn’t sell food. See http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/01/25/yes-there-are-grocery-stores-in-detroit-by-james-griffioen/ for more on this exasperating theme.
As for the low intensity of the Safeway use, maybe them bears know something about the Vancouver condo market that the rest of us don’t… but it would be great to see something a little more… urban in that spot. Not sure what kind of tax penalties/incentives would do the trick, but it would be worth finding out.
A lot of the ‘retrofitting suburbia’ talk out of the States doesn’t account for the fact that in Canada, our ‘greyfields’ are still economically viable; sure a Safeway plus 20 storeys of residential/office would be better, but the Safeway + parking lot is doing fine as it is.
Safeway, it seems, has a preference for a particular design model in Vancouver. Here’s a quick review that I posted on Urban Studies:
http://sfuurban.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/the-safeway-model/
If the City wants to discourage low-density uses on high-value properties, it has to set up the tax system and development law so that rational property owners will choose to develop their properties. There are a number of creative ways to do this. The idea to cap density as is and force all development to go through a rezoning process would likely have a number of perverse consequences: it would force all new building to go through a rezoning process, making new development even more risky, lengthy, and expensive. Frankly, this is a great idea if you believe the city should stop growing.
If the objective is to encourage the redevelopment of low-density sites near transit, the CIty can make developing those sites less risky, shorter in time, or less expensive. It can also make it more expensive to hold property, so that redeveloping to more intensive uses has a higher return to its owner than its current use. This could be done, for example, by taxing unimproved land instead of improved land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
There have been some proposals to streamline the development process, and Geller’s ugly tower idea is one of them. I think there are some better ones out there.
The way CACs are done the city already owns the additional density. The Safeway site does not currently allow for a 20 storey tower as Safeway never rezoned for it. Safeway would not rezone for it before it intends to build it as it would be stuck paying higher taxes based on that new zoning. When the property is rezoned for higher density the city will take 70-80 of the lift. I’m not sure what Michael is asking for here as the city doesn’t typically prezone.
Not surprising that Safeway has not gone for a rezoning. Nearly a couple of decades ago, there was an attempt to rezone the property across the street for a building around 10 stories I believe. That was not particularly popular and obviously did not go ahead. Hopefully, it would be easier now but obviously there is a risk involved in moving ahead with the expensive rezoning process when there is a real chance it would not get approved.
Hopefully the new planning process for the area will provide more clarity and support for much higher densities near the station.
There has been a fair amount of planning work done around the station including the Safeway site. Some of it is in here:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/projects/urban_showcase/transit_village/Broadway%20Commercial/Creating%20the%20Plan/BroadComm%20Transit%20Village%20Open%20House%20Boards%20Oct05.ashx
My question to Gord Price was not about Safeway, which was a hypothetical example, but about a part of zoning that I don’t completely understand. Joe Just Joe provided the answer closest to what I’m seeking.
The (unstated) question is, how can a city encourage dense development in areas where it is desired? The city can zone an area around a transit station for, say, a floor area ratio that would allow a 20 storey building, but, as I understand it, the developer is free to build one storey and pay taxes just for that use. I thought that if the city maintains the higher FSR zoning, that the landowner would get all the benefit of the land lift when she later sells to a developer who wants to use the whole entitlement. Apparently I thunk wrong.
Safeway was only an easy example (or target– I’ve been annoyed for decades that they insist on building their suburban store design in dense, or should-be-dense urban neighbourhoods.) My apologies to those who took the example literally due to my clumsy ask.
Despite that, it seems that I’m not the only one who is confused about how zoning works, how it fits into the planning and development processes, who benefits when, and the pros and cons of the concept. If someone knows of a great link to the answers, I’d be grateful for a post.
About Safeway, there seems to be a big change in their thinking recently as witnessed by their new storing integrated into New West station and the redevelopment of the store on Granville in Marpole that includes condos. I would expect and hope they are looking to do similar developments at stores around the region. The Kits store on 4th and Broadway at Commercial store would be good places to start.
Michael A – the Safeway on Granville in Marpole is trying to redevelop as you suggest. Let’s see how that process works out.
Richard – thanks for posting the link to the CoV/translink study of theBroadway/commercial station precinct. There has indeed been a lot of study and planning in this precinct over the years. There is c3-A zoning in this area, which at 3 FSR is the highest density outright zone south of Downtown, and generally limited to theBroadway corridor and major crossroads and “nodes” of transit along it.
The Expo line era led to a major development proposal where the Commercial Drive station now sits. It included two high rise buildings (one residential and one office) and a parking structure that spanned the Grandview Cut. Never popular with area residents, market constraints precluded its implementation for over a decade, and it was rezoned – actually down zoned- when the station was built c. 2000.
The Norwegian’s have an alternative method of valuation and taxation that prevents this kind of situation.
All the property taxes collected are based on the value of the land. What is built on the land is given no consideration. So the site with an FSR of 3 and a single storey Safeway pays the same taxes per square food of land as the site next door with an FSR of 3 and a 20 storey building on it. The difference is the site with the larger building has a lot larger revenue source to support the property tax payment.
You won’t find the vacant lots, under built development or leapfrog development in Norway that you find here. Land owners can’t afford to have their land vacant. It sounds draconian but the local government is very careful about how it zones and works with the community and land owners when zoning changes. Everyone is used to this so it works really well.
What if we tried shifting 1% of the property tax per year from buildings to land, so that in 100 years all our taxes were based on the zoning of the land. Could it have the same effect? Would the time frame be long enough for the market to react and infill to occur in an orderly fashion that wouldn’t rock the property market?