I friend of mine, who lives in the City of Vancouver, recently visited me in Langley. It was the first time that this friend and their spouse actually travelled to Langley City. Very few people I know who live in the City of Vancouver venture beyond a 5 minutes walk of the SkyTrain in the South of Fraser; I was impressed.
After lunch, we went for a walk around Downtown Langley. The spouse of my friend was really surprised that Langley contained more than single-family houses and big-box store.
Many people have the impression that farmland in the South of Fraser is being paved over for single-family housing. While a small amount of farmland has been converted to urban purposes, this is the exception rather than the rule.
I wrote a report a few years back about the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). I found that the provincial government was causing the most destruction to ALR by building massive highway projects such as the South Fraser Perimeter Road.
People who live in the South of Fraser actually care a great deal about the preservation of farmland. In the Township of Langley, Councillors have been voted out of office for supporting development on farmland.
Much of the development in the South of Fraser is actually the redevelopment of large-lot suburban housing from the mid-twenty century.
While you are certainly going to see single-family housing, strip malls, and big-box power centres in the South of Fraser, you are also just as likely to see the following.
University Drive in Downtown Surrey. Source:
waferboard
A mixed-use building in Ladner.
The recently built Willoughby Town Centre in the Township of Langley.
Map of early twenty century railways and interurban lines in the South of Fraser/Fraser Valley.
Some past and current development decisions have eroded these town centres. This is why it is critical that there are people who will advocate for the accessibly development of these town centres.
The South of Fraser is the largest part of Metro Vancouver. Imagine what kind of region we could have if urbanist worked constructively with communities out here.
It is extraordinary how narrow and limited the lives of many people living in the city of Vancouver is. I also know of many people in Vancouver that have never seen the South Surrey Morgan Crossing development. Larco and Grosvenor are continuing to develop the area which is a mix of big-box, small retail, office strata (the largest Metro), the massive new Grandview Heights Aquatic Centre (Olympic pool and seating for 900), residential over retail village, townhouses, etc. As Frank O’Brien quoted and Adera spokesman three years ago in BIV, “Our walking score [a Google formula that tracks how pedestrian-friendly an area is] is 80 out of a possible 100, which is amazing for a suburban neighbourhood,” said Adera president Norm Coutie. “It’s like Yaletown, but with golf and beaches.”
The Achilles heel of South Surrey’s growth is transportation. Locals say the real need is for faster links to Surrey’s SkyTrain network.”
Tsawwassen and north and south Delta continue to grow too, as does Langley, etc.
Where’s the grand plan to bring comprehensive transit to these areas?
One also cannot help getting the impression that many in Vancouver have never had to contend with the Massey Tunnel at rush hour.
What’s the grand plan to bring transit to these areas?
The one we voted down.
Geez.
Gord; as discussed many times, buses just won’t make it. Rapid transit rail or new Pattullo Bridge and new Massey Bridge.
I agree more rapid transit rather than buses. I hope you vote for a provincial government who actually funds this rather than the current one.
The new Massey tunnel is just a huge white elephant that we don’t need.
The Massey Tunnel replacement with 8 or 10 lanes wont help your walk scores. Now if we had a provincial government that prioritized transit or SOV that would be different…
Correction: Not “or” but over
It’s like Yaletown, only lacking the style, desirability, location, history, architecture, proximity to desirable jobs, transit access, variety of restaurants, quality of local services and ease of car-free lifestyle.
Totally the same right?
The achilles heel of Surrey is that it was planned poorly with bones that were only sized low density single family homes and cars.
Morgan Heights is equidistant to Bellingham as it is to Vancouver (by car anyways). At best, it should hope for commuter rail or BRT to Newton and Bridgeport. It’s in the middle of nowhere. Providing significant transit out that far will cost as much as 3 or 4 riders in the central part of the system.
You just explained why they need a new Massey Bridge.
No, he hasn’t. The traffic on the Massey Tunnel is decreasing, even with new density in South Surrey. There simply is no need for it.
The traffic would have to decrease to 1960 levels to reduce the pollution from the masses of idling vehicles. Every single day we hear reports of and see 3 km backups southbound all the way to Blundell, both am & pm.
Perhaps, Eric. But nothing justifies 10 lanes where 6 with 2 devoted to transit will do.
I noticed how far south the new route to the ferries extends down the 99, just waiting for the new bridge approaches. Meaning the Massey was in the works years before it was announced as a referendum-free project that will likely approach 4 billion dolleros once inflation and construction cost overruns and change orders work their inexorable way into it.
The SFPR just followed the shortest route. the new route is not obligatory, it’s just a suggestion that lightens the traffic from the residential area of eastern Ladner and the traffic-light at the trunk road.
Diverting heavy traffic from residential areas is good planning.
SFPR is already undersized with traffic jams at some intersections. It should have been at least six lanes.
Massey and PM bridge will be hailed as visionary in 20 years once all commercial projects along Fraser, north and south of it in Delta, Ladner, Surrey, Nurnaby and New West are being fully developed . MetroVan is THE pacific export and import hub to Canada and even to some US inland ports. Commerce like this is hugely relevant for jobs and tax revenue not only in BC but Canada wide as we are an exporting nation. Perhaps they even close the container port in Vancouver and make it Yaletown 2. We ought to consider pushing out into Boundary Bay and west of Tsawwassen to create more land and perhaps they even build a bridge ( plus oil pipeline below) to Gulf and then Vancouver Island to stimulate the poor economy in that part of S-BC.
Urban areas like Lower Maonland need to also include commerce expansion not just more bike lanes , single family houses, medium density housing and pretty & tall condo towers. Since not too many truckers blog here, crane operators or other so called blue collar workers please also consider their livelihood.
Some people choose a better commute and more walkable neighbourhood over a lower sticker price on a building. Why should Vancouverites have to empathize with being stuck in traffic they’ve chosen not to be part of?
Empathy is not requested. Dead Island Park, Westam Island, Beach Grove, Centennial Park, Mud Bay Park, The Serpentine Fen, all around Crescent Beach and Blackie Spit, the massive Boundary Bay Dike Trail, Sunnyside Acres Urban Forest, South Surrey Arena Park, the White Rock Promenade and all the golf courses, etc., are all well patronized with healthy energetic locals. Understanding that transportation infrastructure to the outside world is expected is all.
I don’t know. In the context of your comment, “One also cannot help getting the impression that many in Vancouver have never had to contend with the Massey Tunnel at rush hour.” sounds like a Call to Empathy to me. “Understanding” is a bit different. But I should chill. This is an online forum. Not a place for splitting hairs and parsing semantic nuance
As Nathan mentions in his intro., many people living in Vancouver never venture out to the ‘burbs. I too know this to be true. There is some call for nothing to done regarding the Massey Tunnel replacement and one has to wonder if some people experience it – ever.
Oh I know people that rarely go East of Burrard St.
“Where’s the grand plan to bring comprehensive transit to these areas?”
Ummm…
“It’s like Yaletown, but with golf and beaches.”
Yeah….not quite lol
A rapid bus up to New Westminster to get on the subway just doesn’t appeal to these people. The other slow bus up to the Richmond subway line wasn’t exciting either. Ignore the area if you wish. It’s not going to stop growing.
Take a look at this:
http://goodmanreport.com/content/BRO%20Morgan%20Place.pdf
How does a bus travelling in a dedicated lane on a freeway qualify as “slow”?
The #351 gets from the South Surrey park and ride to Bridgeport faster than a multi-billion dollar Canada Line extension would and certainly faster than a single occupancy vehicle during the morning rush.
It’s really OK for you and Thomas to simply admit you hate buses on principle.
Buses are clogged in traffic say on Broadway or Hastings or Marine Drive i.e. far slower than a car. Much slower.
They stop far too frequently.
They wobble when they stop, accelerate or go over bumps.
They are often too cold or too warm.
Bus stations often provide no shelter in the rain.
Ie a major inconvenience designed for people who can’t afford a car.
To get people out of their car speed is relevant. And a smooth ride so you don’t feel seasick when on it. St triple the commute time from UBC to anywhere I usually take Car2Go or Evo or my own car. Faster and more enjoyable. Individual choice of music and temperature, too !
David; since you are familiar with the 351 route from South Surrey, could you tell us why the northern extension to the Park and Ride parking lot, that TransLink built a couple of years ago, is always empty. Occasionally one might see a car or two there doing driver training but it’s empty.
What is it that completely discourages anyone to use it?
Is it the bus, or where the bus goes? Is it the cost? Is it that people are carrying things that are too big to fit on a bus? Is it the speed of the bus?
What do you think?
You mean the lot that the Ministry of Transportation funded, but was erroneously “celebrated” by Mr. Bateman as a TransLink boondoggle?
Park and ride only really works when (a) transit goes where you’re going and (b) the alternative is truly awful.
I don’t think either of the above is true. The majority of Massey Tunnel traffic is heading for somewhere in Richmond requiring multiple bus transfers or simply isn’t served adequately at all. Alex Fraser traffic has no interest in Bridgeport Station either.
Plus I don’t think the situation at those two crossings is as unbearable as some would have us believe. A study last year showed that tolling the existing facilities would accomplish almost as much as building a whole new crossing. The increased lineups along “free” routes are also evidence that people are irrational and will spend more time and burn more fuel to avoid a toll even when the bottom line is negative.
I’ve driven through the tunnel in the afternoon rush dozens of times. It’s rarely the most frustrating part of the journey.
Finally I’d say that suburbanites in South Surrey where 1/2 acre lots are the norm and driving is the only way to accomplish anything don’t even think about taking transit.
Where is the debate of ALR relaxation for more housing, parks, commercial or industrial uses ? What body decides that ? How is this body influenced ? While clearly we have to eat, we also need land for other uses. Where and how is this decided in the Lower Mainland ? Who sits on the commitee and how do they get appointed ?
With over 500 km2 of land (500,000,000 m2, or 123,500+ acres) locked up in public roads and detached home property setbacks in the Lower Mainland, there is no reason to consider opening a debate on carving up the ALR. There is a greater need to open a debate on using land less wastefully.
Nonetheless, the BC government is considering opening the ALR to “other” uses than farming, so far without debate or even a hint of a meaningful discussion.
You’re looking for the province’s Agricultural Land Commission, Thomas. Commissioners are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. My experience with them is that they’ll bend to the wishes of a local municipality or board. If there’s ample local support to overturn all or portion of a reserve, they will conditionally permit it. If there is local opposition or lukewarm or disjointed support, the ALR will remain by default. More here:
http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/content/home
40% of Richmond is ALR. Cranberries and Blueberries constitute 65% of the crops. Hay is another 15%. The next biggest crop is potatoes at 4% of the land.
It’s all very nice and good. A please to drive around on a warm sunny day. Delta even more so.
For most its not about the agriculture, its more about preventing more urban sprawl. If we need agriculture as the excuse to prevent urban sprawl then so be it.
Therefore; sufficient roads to residential areas beyond, and bridges where necessary, are required.
Yes, IF those people have to pay the full cost of the commute which includes municipal roads and all the externalities. If those costs were included then we wouldn’t need a lot of roads that exist now and we would all pay less in taxes.
It’s not only about preventing sprawl, but about long term food security and conserving a rare resource in this province: arable soils. Once paved over, they are gone forever.
Today the vast majority of our produce comes from California and Mexico. That is possible only because water is highly subsidized there and has been overused in desert regions. That precious resource is now running low due to a sustained, record drought.
The other reason is that the fossil fuels used in fertilizer and transportation has been historically cheap, with the exception of a five-year period ending in 2008 when it spiked and caused a number of tipping points to trip, which in turn caused a world wide recession.
Anyone who dares to suggest we should smother the ALR with tarmac, plaster palaces and sprawling malls will need to account for the supply of water in the US southwest and Mexico and the price of fossil fuels to 2050 and beyond. I don’t believe that can be done with any level of accuracy. The population in 2050 would quickly determine that those who based their development decisions in agricultural areas on yesterday’s (or last century’s) circumstances only to see imports of food cease while ticky tacky car-dependent subdivisions cover the entire landscape between the border and the mountains, as complete blithering idiots.
So true. Here we have rich delta soil in a warm part of the country. It would be a shame if it became just more housing. Places to live could be made up a hill or all sorts of places but food production works best when it’s flat.
All sorts of things could happen to increase the cost of imported food, we need to have our own production happening too and hang on to what we still have.
The water subsidy points in Valifornia and Mexico are well taken and a reason for too cheap import food prices, No worries, oil remains cheap and so will the Can $ and as such food prices will continue to rise in BC.
So, where is an intelligent debate here on this in a growing region with today 2.5M and in 50 years easily double that population ?
Why are there no roads up Indian Arm for 100,000 people there ? Why not create more land in Boundary Bay or west of Tsawwassen for a few sq km of new land and 500,000 new people, car free like Venice, or car reduced like Amsterdam with a few train stations connected to Surrey and Richmond ? Why grow blueberries besides ten story high rises ?
Yes food is important but so is shopping, entertainment, recreation, education, arts, harbors, commerce and housing. ALL are required in an urban context.
Canada has plenty of land, and most land is far cheaper elsewhere, say Okanagon or Alberta or even rural Ontario where plenty of food is being produced today. Canada is a net food exporter.
Here’s a more realistic scenario, Thomas.
Raise the overall Metro density to comfortable Chelsea-Kensington’s within the existing Urban Containment Boundary. That would put 10 million people on ~820 km2 of land without filling in the sea, bulldozing the mountains, clearcutting the forests, rezoning parks for development, filling in the reservoirs and forcing our farmers to move to Alberta.
Why is Collingwood almost all single storey, even along Kingsway?
Amen. Even around the skytrain stations, Nanaimo and 29th avenue, it’s virtually abandoned.
1. Because the province refuses to fund transit adequately enough to support greater densities.
2. Because city council is and has been historically seated with spineless politicians unwilling to dethrown standard and large lots from their vaunted Holy Grail pedestal and seriously address moderate density infill, even just within two blocks of Kingsway and other arterials. A few spot rezonings excepted.
Eric, another few years of drought in California and Mexico, and those figures on cranberries, bluberries and hay are sure to be adjusted when vegetables, other fruits and more livestock are grown here for the local market.
Plus a US $ now 40% – perhaps soon 50% – more expensive than two years ago. California is now working on desalination plants as their water subsidies are not sustainable anymore. As such, BC will become a major food exporter and ALR vs residential land needs competition will intensify both in Okanagon and Lower Mainland.
We need a strategy ( and more blog entries) to create more land for food production and housing, both in Okanagon and Lower Mainland.
Not necessarily. If the externalities, you speak of, include paying more for the roads, (etc. ?), then the costs of all the food and supplies delivered into the city would rise. The costs of all the service and trades people that travel into the city would rise too.
Road pricing is another tax, like a PST as most goods or services in a city are car or truck dependent. The question then is: what other taxes will be reduced if we truly wish more expensive car use to force less cars and more alternate modes of transportation in dense cities ?
May I suggest lower income taxes as the tax grab is 30% on wages up to 95,000, and even higher up to almost 50% over it ?
Now we talking about a subject both the right and left can agree on. I would prefer to increase the income tax exemption or reduce payroll taxes but ya income tax rates will work too.
In the road pricing region, I would eliminate gas tax and add road pricing. Also add distance based insurance. Road pricing revenue would pay for transportation including the many externalities. I would independently raise the carbon “tax”, which would continue to go back into lower income and corporate taxes.
So, we’re all agreed. At last. We love the ALR and nobody is suggesting building homes on it. The fresh air and as well as the cranberries and blueberries that feed us. We can’t afford rapid rail all over Delta, South Surrey, Langley or even down to the ferry terminal at Tsawwassen. Neither is it even suggested that North Vancouver should have anything more than another sea-bus. So, we must have decent roads and bridges, particularly because the whole area south of the river is growing so fast it will soon have a larger population than the city of Vancouver.
Amalgamation could one day be on the table. All the expensive bureaucracies for a region that doesn’t always sing the same song. Maybe one day the mayor on Cambie and 12th will be from Langley.
How does that sound Nathan?
We have decent roads and bridges, mostly – they need to be repaired, maintained and eventually replaced, as the Pattullo Bridge now needs to be, but not expanded. Current traffic counts on the Massey Tunnel are decreasing, and the tunnel could last many more years. Replacing it with a 10-lane monstrosity is not only an unnecessary waste of money but will automatically increase pressure on ALR land.
The population south of the Fraser is growing, as are the number of jobs south of the Fraser. These aren’t, nor should they be, only bedroom communities. We had a plan that would have greatly improved transit access and rapid transit south of the Fraser, which was unfortunately voted down. It’s too bad. It would have even laid the groundwork for eventual light rail to White Rock. But that is the future we must follow, for environmental, economic, social and health reasons, not a future based on auto-dependency.
Au contraire. This bridge will actually relieve pressure on the ALR land that exists in south Vancouver and particularly the large 40% land mass of Richmond. Enabling easier travel to beyond these ALR lands means they can be left alone.
The Massey Bridge has been in planning stage for years and the Mayors Plans reflected this known fact. Why throw money at seismic upgrades to a small 60 year old leaking tunnel when it needs to be replaced soon anyway?
Any idea that rapid bus from White Rock to Surrey Central was appealing is sadly misguided. The vast bulk of the traffic goes towards New Westminster, Burnaby, Richmond and Vancouver, not Surrey.
I doubt anyone ever imagined the Mayors’ Plan was laying the groundwork for a light rail to White Rock. Was this ever mentioned anywhere? What was the planned route? King George Highway would be difficult to justify since it is far less congested at rush hour than the 99 or the 91.
Scary. The people in the ‘burbs are nice people but they are living under different conditions so won’t understand some urban things or see their importance.
Look at Toronto with Rob Ford. His suburban viewpoint on how things worked messed up downtown, (including it’s motor vehicle traffic), because he didn’t get how things are different in a city.
We need a rapid rail / subway loop from W-Van to N-Van under Marine Drive over L Gate and Second Narrows via E-Van to downtown.
Both bridges are too small for ever increasing density on North Shore and in E-Van. Buses are clogged on both bridges. ( or this here: http://www.skytran.us ) A major oversight in proposed ( and rejected ) transit proposal.
Hm. That is not the most representative photo of Downtown Surrey. I’d go with this instead, it shows the sea of surface parking: https://twitter.com/GRIDSVancouver/status/667571192451104768
As far as suburbs go, New West is killing it in comparison: https://twitter.com/GRIDSVancouver/status/667580114780094465
That’s because New West isn’t a suburb in the conventional sense. It’s a city that was engulfed by the growth of the metropolitan area.
I’m not convinced that we can prevent sprawl. With assessments in Vancouver jumping by yet another 25% in just one single year, people are being forced South of the Fraser. We have to admit that, like low income people being gentrified out of the DTES, middle income people are now being gentrified out of Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond.
I want to stay in Mount Pleasant, but my family needs a bigger place. What options do I have left? Next year, it could go up by another 25%. And, the year after that? And, the year after that? There was a news article citing that 20 years ago, the average first-time buyer took 4 years to save a downpayment; it now takes 23 years.
The development pressure on the ALR is coming to a head. Food security is obviously important, but Cranberries are going to have to sell for $100/pound to justify the land they’re occupying.
Kirk, we don’t need 100/pound cranberries. Lots of space exists for us to build up, we don’t need more urban sprawl to solve our housing needs. Also don’t forget to include the cost of a subsidized commute from the burbs.
Increasing supply has proven to be an ineffective band-aid against ever increasing rents. If anything, rental rates in the new buildings are much higher than the existing area rents. Plus, a new rental building in Surrey is still going to be cheaper than a new rental building in Vancouver.
I whole-heartedly agree, though, that commutes have to be factored into the costs. But, my guess is that the cross-over point for that was reached years ago — the cost of housing continues to skyrocket up; the cost of commuting (gas, reliable cars) is actually going down. Factoring in all costs like roads and environment make sense, but no politician is going to make drivers pay for all of that. For better or worse (I think worse), it will continue to be subsidized.
Anyway, we can just look at schools to get a fairly accurate picture of how it’s playing out. Schools in Surrey are overflowing. Schools in Vancouver are closing. This trend is not going to turnaround. And, most families are not buying 4000sqft houses in Surrey. They’re renting townhouses because that’s all they can afford. Even townhouses in Langley are now pushing $2000/month. It’s crazy, and it’s not slowing down.
You just said that increasing supply wont solve the problem, then why do you say we should use the ALR land to increase supply if that is not solution??
You cant have it both ways.
I can have it both ways because I said that a new building in Surrey is cheaper than one in Vancouver. I haven’t seen a single instance in which a new rental building has come on-line in Vancouver where it’s rents were cheaper than comparables :(.
Personally, I’m angry at the prospect of having to move out of my building and neighbourhood in Vancouver. But, with the ever increasing prices, what alternative do I have?
Why do you expect buildings that are newer than average to also be cheaper than average? That’s pretty unrealistic.
The points you’re missing are that A) new buildings don’t stay new forever, and B) every household accommodated in a new, expensive building is no longer bidding up the price of other buildings.
Excellent point, N.
@”I can have it both ways” from Kirk
But what does that have to do with the ALR, Building can be built where low density housing existed before in both Vancouver and Surrey.
Kirk, assessments increased by 25% for detached west side homes (more accurately, the land they sit on), not for condos.
Having higher rental rates due to a low supply and low vacancy rate is no reason to roll out the subdivisions across rare, irreplaceable arable land. The answer is to increase the supply of rental and attached homes by infilling the vast area of land locked up in those lots that contain a single detached house, and by modest increases in density (i.e. low and mid-rises)outside of downtown.
And a lot more than cranberries are grown in the ALR. The intensification of agriculture will surely go up as the chickens come home to roost on the mismanagement of water for agriculture in the US southwest, and the costs of lonmg-distance transport of food eventually increase again.
Sure. Condos are up about 10%(?). So, just wait another year. Then extrapolate a few more years…
My point to you (and N), is that eventually, the cost of real estate will be so high that it won’t be make a lot of sense to keep it as ALR — to my chagrin as well. Growing a $2 lettuce on land that’s worth a buildable $5000/sqft will be facing a lot of pressure to just import food for a lot cheaper. Zoning can only hold things off so long, money always seems to find a way as we all know too well. I have a mental image of the Avalon Diary land. At one point in time, it was out in the “boonies”, but then the city eventually grew (sprawled) around it and took it over.
BTW, I re-read some of my recent posts. Sorry if I’m sounding so pessimistic and defeatist, but I guess that’s just the mindset I’ve had recently. I was really hoping we could just hang on until we could afford a bigger place near the same school for the kids. But, after the latest assessments came out showing that prices are not levelling off, instead they’re actually accelerating upward, I’m finally realizing that it’s sadly no longer an option.
I am not sure what your budget is, but it is possible to live in a smaller apartment. As for using the ALR, we have a lot of low density land that can be developed into high density land so I do not believe we need to use the ALR ever.
MetroVan real estate, even on the high end, in US $s or Yuan is down at least 10% from two years ago – although up 25-30% in Can $s. As such expect price growth to continue. Look for houses with lots of ( limited ) land. Condos ( with less land per sq ft of dwelling) won’t go up as much for that very reason.
If you can afford it buy a large acreage and ask city to rezone it into smaller lots.
Apples, blueberries or corn etc can be grown far cheaper elsewhere and shipped here.
==> One reason for high prices in MetroVan ( besides the rise of Asia and people and $s from there) is poor or shall I say sub-optimal or contentious land planning such as
A) excessively large ALR given the land value
B) too wide streets or highways,
C) too low density housing even in Vancouver along busy streets like Hastings and
D) no new land creation in shallow tidal areas in Boundary Bay or elsewhere.
Some blog entries on these four topics would be useful.
Seconding N’s comment.
Further, I believe there will be a price ceiling where it will be politically impossible to avoid building abundant rental accommodation any longer if only as a pressure relief valve and allowing attached single-family homes (rowhouses/townhouses, even with mortgage helper suites) and low rises to occupy portions of the 120 km2 of land locked up in Metro Vancouver in setbacks on invidual lots with detached homes.
The amount of land thus locked and added up occupies a total area almost 90% of the entire area of the city of Vancouver.
We have an affordability crisis in part because of poor land management practices. Even if foreign ownership and speculation are stopped overnight, the issue of inefficent land use (and political cowardice) will continue until something breaks.
@ Thomas A): ALR.
When one plans and builds cities one must look at support systems and networks and entire life cycles. Food, water, shelter, transportation …. one should not be parceled off from the others for elimination.
The ALR, like the city, has a limited land base in BC. It is rare, not infinite, and is certainly more valuable than on the Prairies where it is so cheap it’s almost invisible.
When discussing food security and agricultural production the future cannot be ignored. An agonomist recently calculated that the Class 1-3 ALR-protected soils destined to be flooded by the Site C dam in the Peace River Valley would, if farmed as intensively as the ALR in the Lower mainland or Okanagan with high-value crops needed for human survival (vegetables, fruit, some grains, livestock, etc.), generate enough sustenance for one million people and put $1 billion into the economy every year.
The Lower Mainland has a more productive climate than the Peace, and its share of the ALR is larger. Therefore, its productivity is currently far from capacity, and its potential to feed millions more and generate billions every year is huge.
To suggest the ALR should be be buried under inevitably highly subsidized sprawling development and lengthen already tenuous supply chains and import 100% of our food is, in resource value-added terms, similar to suggesting we should fill in the Metro water supply reservoirs for housing and malls and cul-de-sacs and import our water from Alaska.
From a planning perspective, that is so short-sighted it is blind.
No one suggests asphalting all of the ALR. All I am asking for is a periodic review of land use policies given new facts such as water shortages, weather pattern changes, fuel prices, land costs, housing demands, new insights from crop growth research, fertilizer developments or immigration patterns.
Nothing is static, not even land supply and ability to generate new land or new crops !
Land has multiple uses, and food production – while important – is only one use. There are many others needed by humans.
It may make more sense, for example, to grow food elsewhere where land plus production plus shipping costs are more advantageous to consumers in MetroVan. Peace region, Okanagon, V Island, AB, SK, WA, CA, Cuba or NZ.
BC doesn’t produce cars, for example, yet many drive around here. Ditto with food. Does it matter where the blueberry or apple comes from ?
Land can be treated like a tradable commodity only so far, and that is highly dependent on how its attributes are managed.
You can argue that the ALR could be suburbanized and more food imported from outside the jurisidction, but that would continue the slippage in energy efficiency, long-term economic performance and food security, and the degradation of the environment.
Very productive soil was created at our doorstep over the centuries by river deposition. Once lost, it will never come back. This is not about changing land use policy at the stroke of a pen on some god forsaken strip mall site, but about the preservation of a very unique resource so conveniently close to the city. Lower Mainland soils wisely protected by the ALR are the richest and in some areas the deepest food-producing structural soils in Canada, even better quality than Prairie grassland soils. It should be assigned the value of gold.
As it doesn’t, it’s just too easy to dismiss it as dirt like any other, or abuse and politically undermine it to meet the aspirations of suburban real estate developers who supply political campaign donations and who write op-ed pieces on promoting “cheap” housing on converted farm land while ignoring the externalities and long-term implications.
The point really is that ALR land would be much cheaper than bulldozing inner city bungalows. It’s a long shot, since the ALR is sacrosanct.
Therefore, people wanting a family and a tiny pice of earth for children will not want to be up in a high-rise bunker. They will continue to buy the townhouses now sprouting all over the burbs. That’s why Surrey will have a larger population than Vancouver within the next decade.
If enough supply was put in Vancouver then the population of Vancouver could grow faster, but unfortunately too many NIMBYS appose high density to get it approved fast enough.
The ALR is evidently not sacrosanct enough for over-engineered highways and industrial storage yards for shipping containers. Obviously, agricultural land, especially that containing high-quality soils, is grossly undervalued.
And that “tiny piece of earth” for the kids can be bought with rowhousing, half lots, laneway housing with a shared yard, low rises with a yard, etc., not to mention the local park.
The tiny piece of earth is vastly overrated. My kids stopped wanting to play in their own yard when they were 5 or 6. The local schools and parks were far more appealing because they offered playground equipment, big open spaces, and perhaps most importantly, other kids.
Had I known that earlier in life I would not have gone up to my armpits in debt to buy a 60 year old East Vancouver house with a bit of grass out front. All we really needed was a townhouse with a third bedroom.
Lucky you, it went up in value as you now have options to move. Debt is also cheap. You did the right thing. Get a TH or condo if you think that is better.
David, that’s an important experience and observation.
We live near a fairly new small park and the Parks Board had to install two playgrounds to meet the demand. All the first generation neighbourhood kids outgrew their yards within a few years and then used the park more. Once they hit high school age they went further afield and there are new generations of kids in the playground. In fact, all the neighbourhood Filipino nannies bring their little charges to the park every lunch hour and spend the time socializing. It’s obvious that this park, small as it is, became the back yard and the living room of the neighbourhood.
As David says, a townhouse with a third bedroom is what a young family wants and is seeking. These days this costs around $750 a sq’ and up in Vancouver. In Surrey it’s still $300-400.
If you work in Vancouver you will have to factor in transportation costs. However, the spread is so great now that it probably will not technically equate to the higher housing costs unless you buy one car for every family member and do not attach any value to your time on the road.
When I commuted from Vancouver to Langely it was 10 weeks a year sitting behind the wheel, factoring in weekends, holidays and vacations. I still cringe at that personal cost though it was cut back by 2/3rds 23 years ago.
Eric you cant just look at it from only dollars perspective. You also have to put some value on your time. That can also translate into greater health and food costs as you will have less time to cook and might forced to buy more takeout. Less time for exercise.
We know that eating badly combined with lack of exercise can lead to lower intelligence this will factor into your long term earning potential as well. Not to mention the stress of being stuck in traffic verses biking or walking to work.
There is also the quality of the neighbourhood to consider. One doesn’t merely buy a home, one buys into a neighbourhood. The plethora of stores, meeting places, amenities and transit in close proximity within the inner rings cannot be ignored when rejecting the higher housing prices in the city for the vast network of anonymous cul-de-sacs in suburbia where no one walks very far.
You guys need not try and convince me, or anyone else on this forum. You should be writing copy for advertisers of condo blocks. Tell the buyers that although the price might be double the ‘burbs, they’ll save on cars, gas and time – and maybe even walk more.
If Green Vancouver feels so strongly about stopping suburban sprawl then perhaps the city should consider subsidizing buyers of new homes to offset the double cost.
It’s doubtful. I suspect there’s a strong market for both lifestyles. For tradespeople that require a vehicle for lugging around tools and/or equipment, it’s the burbs, unless they are wealthy.
Have you seen the new Granville Heights Aquatic Centre?
http://hcma.ca/grandview-heights-aquatic-centre/
There must be over ten residential and another half dozen commercial developments under way now, on top of those already established in the area.
If it were that easy to convince people that the city is superior the townhouses in the ‘burbs wouldn’t be selling like hot cakes but they are. And, as long as they are the residents will need extensive rapid transit and/or roads. Nice bridges to go over the river to New Westminster, Burnaby, Richmond, the airport and even Vancouver.
Any large urban region need CHOICES for numerous housing options: high end mansions, condos in highrises , townhouses, average houses, small houses, duplexes, rental apartments or micro suites. One size does not fit all and one should not tell people where they should live. Let them make their own choices. Some prefer to walk three blocks after a 28 story elevator ride from their 650 sq ft condo and some prefer a BBQ in their own back yard with three bedrooms for kids & guests and prefer a car. Some don’t mind paying being close to the beach or having an ocean view of an LRT two blocks away and other look for a low price only and prefer yard over ocean proximity given a certain budget.
Good urban planning is about providing all these choices – at various price points as some folks are rich, some are poor and many somewhere in between. We can debate road pricing and alleged car subsidies. Life is about trade offs and public transit, while beneficial to many, is also a low cost least common denominator transportation choice that some avoid for that very reason.
Could not agree more, I would never want to force someone to do something but that choice should be based on real prices without subsidizes and paying for externalities.
So $6-10 for a transit ride ?
Tolls on bike lanes ?
The toll on the bike lane would be a few cents but sure.
I don’t think it would 10 more like 6 or 7 dollars for transit.
Road pricing for cars would be included.
If those prices included no property taxes or no payroll taxes then yes I am for it.
If you think the suburbs are not subsidized, then I’d urge you to do more math.
Who subsidizes them ? Don’t they pay PST, income taxes, property taxes, utilities, garbage removal and various gasoline and car related charges buried in the price of gas, annual registration fees, GST & PST on car purchase, bridge tolls etc ?
But yes parking and driving needs likely additional tolls. But then why not transit at full cost, say $6 for short trip or $20 for a long one ?
What services does one get for free by paying GST, PST, income taxes or property taxes ? Which ones are billed extra, and to what % ! Beach access fee too ? School fees ? Why are schools free but a pool is not ? Etc ..,
Thomas what we are looking for is paying for externalities and user pay models for things like pollution. Education is beneficial we want that subsidized or free. Driving is not like that and I am sure you know that.
Public transit is subsidized to the tune of roughly 50%. Roads and cars less so. Why ?
Which government services are free, which ones somewhat subsidized and which not at all, and why ?
The province did a study some years ago which showed that automobile transportation in the lower mainland was more heavily subsidized than transit. I believe that automobile transportation is the biggest social program in Canada.
http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_report.html
Thomas, the operating costs of roads are 100% subsidized, and the collective capital costs are very close to that. Tolls on bridges do not cover the construction or maintenance of entire road network.
Thomas, in addition to Arno’s counterargument and link, here is another set of numbers to contemplate:
National Expenditure on Roads (2010/11)
Federal: $2.48B
Provincial: $14.69B
Local: $11.89B
Total: $28.96
Of this total, ~$13B is in the form of subsidies because users do not cover operating costs. Externalities like healthcare, litigation and environmental remediation are excluded.
Expenditures on transit by comparison (all sources): $7.5B
Sources: Transport Canada, and Sustainable Prosperity Report on Suburban Sprawl, (2013).
Further, the cost of supplying trenching for underground utilities has the same per metre cost (accounting for inflation and size) regardless of whether it’s built in the city or the suburbs. What this means is that utilities have to travel a lot farther to serve fewer people in low density suburbs than in the city, thus the suburbs have costlier and subsidized utilities.
Similarly, and again, suburbs do not pay for the taxpayer-funded assets and services they use and consume, whether roads, institutions and services like fire/ambulance/police, and schools. There are many North Amercian studies on this topic which are just a couple of Google clicks away.
Isn’t it fun to predict the future. Here’s another fun prediction just in today.
It’s all about autonomous cars.
“Greater Expansion of Cities
The aforementioned improved flow of traffic should make journeys in and out of cities much more efficient. Furthermore, once freeways are completely occupied by autonomous vehicles, speed limits could increase or even be removed altogether, which would allow people to travel much more quickly than they do, today. Ultimately, the prospect of commuting will appeal to a much larger demographic and lead to a higher interest in constructing that spacious, ‘dream’ home out in the country.”
Where did you get that from?
Here:
http://architizer.com/blog/audi-automatics/
Interesting but I don’t think it will be autonomous cars that do it. I see PRT or the hyperloop doing driving those changes.
And the road infrastructure still needs to be paid for. More accurately, subsidized with public debt funds.