I asked Holly Sovdi, one of the planners in the West Team who spearheaded the process of a major revision of the West End plan, to sum up the major lessons they learned.
Here are five points that stand out.
1. For us in the West End team, we tried to understand the local context and issues early on. In the West End there were some major issues that we heard during the pre-plan scoping including:
- lack of housing affordability,
- struggling local business,
- heritage at risk,
- aging public facilities, and
- the fear of losing the West End’s green leafy character to ‘Yaletownization’.
These topic areas allowed us to focus discussions on what we were hearing mattered most.
2. Outreach
The latest round of community plans focused on broad inclusive outreach rather than a ‘plan-by-committee’ approach. In the West End, this allowed to use our resources to reach out to more than 7,000 local residents, business owners, and stakeholders, through the 18 month planning process.
We tried to reach out and engage through a variety of interesting and fun activities for a diverse range of people. This included walkshops, interest-based citizen circles, planning team attending local events and celebrations, going to places where people are (parks, pubs, restaurants, a drag show, etc), coffee-shop dialogues, painting murals with kids and parent, art jams, and other opportunities suggested from the Neighbourhood Champions Network.
3. Timing
Completing the plan within a year and half posed many challenges for the City in terms of resourcing and having to knock down some of the typical red tape to get things done. However, in the public realm I think that having a set of discussions about the community over 18 months was a reasonable amount of time.
The issues were relevant, the dialogue didn’t get stale (at least I hope it didn’t), and most people could participate from start to finish. This is much shorter than the last community plan in Mount Pleasant that took close to 5 years and resulted in stakeholder burn out and a process that many thought was too drawn out.
4. Implementation and targets
The Plan was not only a future land use plan but also an implementation plan with clear 10 year and 30 year targets for growth, housing, jobs, facility improvements, energy, etc. This was tied to funding sources and prioritized.
5. Clarity and certainty
We heard that there was a need for more clarity and certainty. The plan identified clear areas for growth and achieves this primarily through new zoning rather than a site-by-site rezone approach. This includes inclusionary zoning that allows for density bonuses where developments are contributing affordable housing and other amenities.
The entitlement thinking of the West End folks is well entrenched. Struggling local businesses and lack of densification go hand in hand. If we want to preserve heritage homes, as opposed to building high-rises for example, that is essentially a tax payer subsidy to those that live there already, and a reduction of property value for the current heritage home owner.
Everybody loves to live in the West-End as it is currently fairly inexpensive, close t downtown and beaches, and because it is old and not upgraded. Many buildings are falling apart due to rent control laws and low income tenants.
Disallowing densification is essentially reduction in property value for the current owner, i.e. wealth distribution from landlord to tenant.
A difficult balancing act.
Affordable housing will not be produced with protecting the current low density. Only higher density with preservation of some rental stock does that.
The old widow whose son has moved out and whose husband has dies years ago lives in a low rent 3 BR for $1200, rent controlled, while the family with 2 kids wishing to move there and who could afford a market rent of $2400 cannot move in. Widow wins, family loses. That is the West End in a nutshell.
See also your blog on vastly increasing rents in San Francisco. Same issue. Same result.
Why do people only seem to offer this opinion about the West End and not Marpole or Kerrsidale or West-West Broadway? No ax to grind here, I live in a denser part of Fairview.
Just wonder why there is so much argument for hyperdensification when spreading more low-key density around more evenly throughout the city would be more equitable, make a more livable city, and be more sustainable than high-rises. Look at West 7th near Oak. Very dense but leafy, green and a very pleasant place to live, including for families. There is a lot that is in walking distance or accessible by good-quality transit service. There are signs of gentrification, but by in-city standards it is a relatively affordable area. This should be the blueprint for the city, not more Yaletowns and South East False Creeks.
While smaller buildings everywhere may be a better option, proposals to do just that have been strongly opposed in many neighbourhoods. Marpole for example. The thin streets proposal that would have built 1 and 2 story houses on underused street right of ways was also strongly protested and the city backed down.
The reality is that building a few towers is a far less disruptive way to increase the number of homes in the city than tearing down lots of houses and replacing them with 2-4 story buildings.
With land prices so high, taller buildings are the only way to have homes that are more affordable.
I agree .. more 4-8 stories would be better than more 30+ stories .. more European (Paris/Berlin/London) type density .. but even that is opposed usually. So therefore they often go for 20-30+ as the same type of upfront work and anguish is required ..
The city needs to find a way to let developers replace decaying three story walkups with highrises that can incorporate new units, as well as replace the lost unit at similar rents. Surely allowing a 12 story building on the site of a 3 story walkup the developer can afford to incorporate affordable units? Sure, the units may not be as big as before but that’s happening to all housing types.
The alternative can already be seen: renovictions where these older buildings are tarted up but no units added, and they are let at much higher rents,
That is the current practice if new density is allowed on that lot, and that is a big if.
Have you ever noticed the lot size of a typical three story walk up? Putting a twelve story building wherever a three story walk up was is pretty unfair to the rest of the neighborhood, would create a lot of shadowing and sure wouldn’t leave any room for a lawn or garden. Not to mention really unnecessary. A walkup can look crappy on the outside and still be solidly built, mold free, warm and cozy inside with hardwood floors to boot.
Indeed, but it does not provide more housing, and if the (rent controlled) tenancy ends rents will often double or triple due to an imbalance of demand and supply. Only more supply makes rents or condos (or houses) more affordable. Nothing else. Restricting supply just robs Peter to pay Paul.
Well, answer this question then; if a glut of supply makes prices drop, why would anyone want to take it a mortgage on a new condo?
You are speaking out of your God given entitlement to maximum profit on the backs of other people’s lives. Sorry Thomas, that entitlement exists only in your head. There will always, always, always be cases where land use use is not zoned to maximum density for the benefit of quality of living. You should not be looking at the worth of shelter solely as a means of tax extraction. If the way you thought was policy, we would not have parks and half the city would be in shadow. Like this:
http://photomichaelwolf.com/#architecture-of-density-2/2
It’s not my entitlement. I am not the city benefiting from taxes. I am a mere realist. You cannot get affordable housing by building none or restricting the creation thereof. Only MORE supply creates affordable housing, not less supply or no supply.
I am not suggesting to build highrises everywhere, certainly not in parks. Europe has dense cities, usually though up to 6 story buildings tightly packed. I prefer this over highrises, but the density per acre is similar. Europe’s big cities like London, Paris, Vienna, Budapest, Munich had affordability problems long before the word was invented. Before they had cars. Before they had elevators, say 100 – 180 years ago. That is why they built walkable, dense cities as no one had cars nor a horse. Some cities had building guidelines to not build higher than say 6 stories. Look over Paris, for example, from the Eiffel Tower: no highrises as far as the eye can see expect a new office tower development from the 1980’s in the suburb somewhere. Only the top 1% perhaps had horses or a carriage. The rest walked. As such, they have an advantage today as they reclaim cities from cars. North America has grown by and large with the car, the last 100 years or so. Vancouver is built for cars, and as such it will be a while to reclaim it for walking people again.
Paris, or any European big city, much like Vancouver has an affordability problem.
Not building new dwellings and then asking for affordable housing is just theft from others, in fact you are asking someone else to subsidize your cheap dwelling in a leafy low density neighborhood a block from the beach – namely the West End 100 years ago.
Images from the 1920’s of Vancouver’s West End here: https://www.google.ca/search?q=vancouver+west+end+1920&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=RPCHU6WsKsGV8QeZtIHQAQ
Nice eh ? Should have bought a house or 8 then !
So, how do we go from here: sensible densification and fast non-car based transportation !
What the city of Vancouver, any city really, should do is be honest. They could say to West End folks (or substitute any suburb or neighborhood in here) s.th like: “Look, we understand you liek teh current look and low density, but Vancouver is growing and we need new housing and more density. We want to add 50,000 more people here at 25,000 new dwellings over the next 25 years, 1000 new dwellings a year. Work with us on how to do it. Where to keep heritage homes ? Where to add or remove green space ? Where to reduce or widen streets ? Where to add 20+ stories and where to leave it 4 stories ? Where to leave, add or remove commercial retail ? etc”
What happens though instead is all this planning language mumbo-jumbo about affordability, and eco-density and sustainability, and urban design panels, and build-to-scale, and consensus, and consultation .. and all parties are up in arms fighting density. No one who lives there wants density.
Only if urban planners are transparent and honest will they actually get buy-in from residents. Most planners are not. They are just slick marketeers with usually better education and better pay than folks who live there. They often know the density end-goals, but don’t communicate them. If they don’t know them they don;t tell folks. They hide.
The same is happening here at UBC where I live. Much “consultation” but no real listening in the end. No honesty. Just “here it is”. No wonder citizens don’t trust city planners and by extensions, politicians. More honesty please ! More transparency ! More consultation if you actually mean it, or just call it information session then if the plan is done. Don’t sugar coat it !
We are trying this right now with the new UBC Campus & Community Planing manager, Michael White. We shall see if there is real honesty and real transparency ! The new 16th Ave @ Wesbrook roundabout with additional high speed exit lanes is not a good start. Under the disguise of “consultation” the plan was presented and construction crews are already onsite.