Patrick Condon commented in detail to Some questions for the Greens about highrises – but his remarks deserve to be brought to foreground:
.
Since my name is mentioned in your post and you ask questions I will give you the honor of a reply. Below are your questions followed by my answers.
.
QUESTION: In the last two years less than 15 percent of new developments in the City of Vancouver have been in the form of highrise (13 storeys and above).
Is that too high? Should we say, essentially, no more highrises except in very few places?
ANSWER: The question is not how many it is where. In my work with Scot Hein and our Landscape Architecture and Planning students we identified logical places for highrises, notably Cambie and 41st and Cambie and 51st. The intersection of 41st is particularly worthy as it is a reasonable location for a second downtown for Vancouver. See more here.
My work has been often characterised as “anti-highrise”. Not true. For me context is everything, and in the 95 percent of the city that is “flat”, highrises make far less sense than in the downtown or at the key transit intersections mentioned above. Why is this controversial?
.
QUESTION: What’s the problem with highrises in your mind? Too alienating, out of scale, unsustainable? Where’s the proof – or is your evidence anecdotal?
ANSWER: Like most things in life, nothing is black and white. So highrises are not always good nor are they always bad. However, if you want evidence of the challenges presented by highrise construction we have plenty: Higher per square-foot energy costs, high GHG consequences due to concrete construction, higher per square-foot construction costs, higher vulnerability to earthquake (see here), an unfavorable ratio of land value to hard costs, and concerns about the long-range durability of glass building envelopes.
As for questions of quality of life and alienation – that is a journey into the weeds. Suffice it to say that low rise living has its qualitative benefits for sure. They are self evident in the many low rise areas of the city. Kits, the Drive, Main Street, Hastings Sunrise, Victoria, 4th avenue, etc.
Again, many of our most favored areas are mostly or all low rise but throbbing with human activity. These are places where resident exhibit very passionate attachment to their neighbourhood. By North American standards they are already high density, at well over 10 dwelling units per acre, the critical threshold necessary to allow for walkability, viable transit, and commercial services within a five minute walk distance.
.
QUESTION: If we revert to medium- and low-rise development as the new norm, are the loss of views and privacy to the occupants worth the trade-off?
ANSWER: Well, who says we are reverting. I and others are making the case that our continued development of low rise alternatives to high rises solves many problems: lower construction cost, lower energy cost, better relationship to streetcar street commercial (compare street life on Commercial with street life in Coal Harbour sometime) and, of course, less resistance from people in the community.
And with the topography of Vancouver there are many ways to get views as a big part of the mix: Fairview slopes is probably the best example of this. Privacy? You mean isolation? It can be done in midrise if that’s your desire. I don’t think isolation is what most of us want. I think the ability to isolate is important however. A locked door often does the trick.
.
QUESTION: Do people really want to live on an arterial – on a route with busy traffic, more pollution and noise? Is that the only choice they’ll have?
ANSWER: Many do. I do. I have lived eight years now on arterials. First on 4th and now at Alma and Broadway. Very happily. But I object to your characterization of them as “busy, polluted, and noisy”. Your language is instantly pejorative. How about calling them “vital, active and convenient” instead. That has been my experience. In fact I wish they were a bit more vital active and convenient. As for pollution, bus fumes are a problem for units on street facing sides who ventilate from open windows. Let’s electrify the transit system. Soon.
Also, sigh, I have never said that all growth should be on the arterials. The same study referenced above showed a variety of house types including townhouses, and, very importantly, an increase in the allowable numbers of dwelling units within the “fabric” of the community back from the arterials.
Some of the value of THAT approach can already be seen in the Kitsilano area between Macdonald and Alma, where former single-family bungalow structures have been converted into three individually owned strata units. Street activity is high and gardens abound. Vacant units are unheard of.
In our study we put around half of all new residents in the “fabric” in expanded and rehabilitated structures – repurposing adapting and reusing the houses on tens of thousands of individual small lot parcels for three four and five dwelling units per parcel. Between this strategy and housing on arterials we were easily able to double the population of the city to 1.2 million.
