That’s the question Gordon Gibson asks in a Sun op-ed this morning:
There are two assumptions and one political imperative underlying current trends. The first assumption is that growth cannot be stopped. That is manifestly not true. Growth in our housing stock requires permits, and those permits don’t need to be granted. …
The second assumption is that a world-class city needs to keep growing. … But here is a contrary factoid. Paris-proper is today much smaller in population than it was 100 years ago, a drop of more than 20 per cent. It has been slowly declining since 1921. And the city was doing just fine last time I visited. …
We need a rethink. A bit more than 40 years ago, Dave Barrett brought in the Agricultural Land Reserve. It was highly controversial at the time (mostly because of lack of compensation) but we bless it today. In Vancouver and indeed throughout Metro we now need an Urban Land Reserve for our quiet neighbourhoods. Who will raise this flag?
The answer is actually quite easy: Those with property and tenure; those who benefit from inducing scarcity and adding value to the existing housing stock.
All that’s required politically is a simple message: If you can’t afford it here or are not allocated housing, don’t come or go away.
.
There’s also a nice ironic touch to the online version:
Will population growth and the drive to density threaten quiet neighbourhoods such as this one near Columbia and West 18th, where The Mighty Oak, a popular corner grocery store and café, serves one of the best lattes in the city?
This is exactly the kind of development that would be prohibited in “our quiet neighbourhoods.” It doesn’t even have dedicated parking.
Imagine proposing a corner store like this in the midst of Dunbar or Kerrisdale. Good grief.
Or rather, go away.
.
UPDATE: Gordon Harris did a more tactfully worded response in this piece in The Sun.
… we should be optimistic. We should grasp the challenge of creating — or expanding the capacity of — the vibrant, livable, safe and quiet neighbourhoods throughout the region and do so in a way that preserves green space, for our immediate pleasure and for everyone’s future.
We cannot — and should not — stop growth in our beautiful city. It is our challenge to accommodate it thoughtfully, affordably and sustainably. In that pursuit, compact urban communities will always be the preferred choice.
I was in Paris a few days ago. A city in decline. Dirty. Very expensive .. 50-100% more than Vancouver for a nice condo. No new housing anywhere. Not clear if this is what we want. We certainly need areas with high growth / high rises and areas that are protected for citizens. That is not necessarily the ALR as it does not make sense to grow raspberries or wheat on land that is $2-20M an acre !
Certainly highrises everywhere makes no sense either. We should also discuss how to develop more land by diking low marshland off Spanish Banks or Richmond, for example. We could also build higher up in N Van or W Van or building a bridge to Vancouver Island or Bowen Island. Many options for meaningful expansion in Vancouver exist for 10,000,000+ people. Jericho land along could hold 50,000 people on what is now the military base and adjacent land, etc …
No growth is not an option in MetroVan for the next few decades …
Lougheed town centre and Templeton, to name just two completely wasted, well-connected parts of Metro https://twitter.com/neil21/status/430718091144609794
Well, a rather poorly researched bunch of nonsense.
Paris is a good example of why this is a really bad idea. The candidate that will likely be the next mayor is proposing a massive social housing development in the middle of a very rich neighbourhood and predicablely, the billionaires are not happy with this.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/23/paris-council-houses-billionaires-row-avenue-foch-mayor
I guess if we banned any increase in housing supply, this would happen:
http://econbrowser.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/fiscal4.gif
A vertical supply curve. Any increase in demand doesn’t affect quantity of housing consumed on the horizontal axis, which becomes permanently fixed. Increases in demand translate entirely into increases in price. So prices would rise dramatically.
It sounds like the kind of thing an old person who owns their home might advocate. Sharp increases in housing prices. And they don’t have to worry about strangling the economy, because they are already 77 years old. Mr. Gibson.
Strange that supposedly environmentally aware posters miss the thrust of Gibson’s argument: The clearest path to save the environment is to reduce the population burden on it. It should not be a foregone conclusion that we must cram more people in here.
More nonsense by Gibson. Vancouver has pretty low GHG emissions per capita. More people living close to downtown where they can walk, cycle or use public transit will reduce their emissions. Forcing them to live far away from downtown in the car dependent burbs will increase their emissions.
You don’t address the point he made and I highlighted.
As a side note the population of Vienna has also decreased from a century ago, yet it vies with Vancouver for the title of one the most liveable world cities. So continual growth is not, should not, be a given.