A Multi-Billion Dollar Real Estate Project Is Rising on Native Land in Vancouver(architecturaldigest.com)
architecturaldigest.com
A Multi-Billion Dollar Real Estate Project Is Rising on Native Land in Vancouver
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/vancouver-real-estate-native-reserve-land
12 comments
> Sadly the rest of the development in Vancouver is no where near the pace it needs to be to keep housing prices down, so this is merely a drop in the bucket.
This is by design. The Vancouver market is aimed at rich foreigners trying to park questionnably acquired assets in a western jurisdiction. Often the house(s) will even be counted as "investment" to acquire citizenship. The income to house price is way better barely three hours south in the Puget Sound anyways.
> I kind of wish developers would just start developing multi-plexes illegally.
Why would they? They cost more to build, Create more supply and the buyers aren't price sensitive (remember, they are getting dirty money out of China). Better make sure there's as little supply as possible to get the best price.
This is by design. The Vancouver market is aimed at rich foreigners trying to park questionnably acquired assets in a western jurisdiction. Often the house(s) will even be counted as "investment" to acquire citizenship. The income to house price is way better barely three hours south in the Puget Sound anyways.
> I kind of wish developers would just start developing multi-plexes illegally.
Why would they? They cost more to build, Create more supply and the buyers aren't price sensitive (remember, they are getting dirty money out of China). Better make sure there's as little supply as possible to get the best price.
> This is by design. The Vancouver market is aimed at rich foreigners trying to park questionnably acquired assets in a western jurisdiction.
Of course Vancouver’s market is appealing, but it’s not because of foreign induced demand. Do you know anybody who doesn’t want to own a home here? 96% of housing purchased in BC is traceably domestic. There simply isn’t enough housing to meet the demand even amongst domestic buyers!
> Why would they? They cost more to build, Create more supply
They only cost more to build because of zoning bylaws. I’m not a building contractor but I have to imagine the cost per square foot is much lower for a low rise if you don’t have to factor in Comprehensive Development permits and community feedback sessions. Making development more financially accessible would also create new opportunity for smaller developers.
It is Vancouver that has created the problem for itself, which creates the right circumstances for foreign investment to be lucrative, but it is very easy to solve. Just flood the market with supply.
Of course Vancouver’s market is appealing, but it’s not because of foreign induced demand. Do you know anybody who doesn’t want to own a home here? 96% of housing purchased in BC is traceably domestic. There simply isn’t enough housing to meet the demand even amongst domestic buyers!
> Why would they? They cost more to build, Create more supply
They only cost more to build because of zoning bylaws. I’m not a building contractor but I have to imagine the cost per square foot is much lower for a low rise if you don’t have to factor in Comprehensive Development permits and community feedback sessions. Making development more financially accessible would also create new opportunity for smaller developers.
It is Vancouver that has created the problem for itself, which creates the right circumstances for foreign investment to be lucrative, but it is very easy to solve. Just flood the market with supply.
> 96% of housing purchased in BC is traceably domestic. There simply isn’t enough housing to meet the demand even amongst domestic buyers!
I wonder what qualifies as a "domestic" buyer. Does a Canadian corporation counts? Considering the real estate investment craze started in the 90's, with birth tourism it's now possible for investors to register the properties under their children's name. I'd be lying if I said I've never met anyone who did that.
> would also create new opportunity for smaller developers.
That's precisely what the existing developers don't want!
I wonder what qualifies as a "domestic" buyer. Does a Canadian corporation counts? Considering the real estate investment craze started in the 90's, with birth tourism it's now possible for investors to register the properties under their children's name. I'd be lying if I said I've never met anyone who did that.
> would also create new opportunity for smaller developers.
That's precisely what the existing developers don't want!
I live in Vancouver and there are two families in my daughter’s class that built one very large house with two kitchens (which is common here in Vancouver for a basement suite or wok kitchen) and in the final stage they built a dividing wall and basically have a duplex now on a lot zoned for single family detached.
Where I live in Providence, Rhode Island this is explicitly forbidden. The local zoning codes regulate the number of kitchens allowed in a single-family house. Of course, lots of illegal apartments exist.
I thought that almost all Vancouver SFHs are now permitted to be turned into duplexes?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/city-council...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/city-council...
Absolutely adore the fact that they were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners.
So you're saying that the descendants of the original indigenous owners, who had their land basically stolen from them by some combination of deceit, force, and outright genocide ... are "irrelevant NIMBYs"?
So you're saying that the descendants of the original indigenous owners, who had their land basically stolen from them by some combination of deceit, force, and outright genocide ... are "irrelevant NIMBYs"?
NIMBYs suck, but it seems wrong to have this bifurcated justice system where different people are subject to different rules, regulations, and laws depending on their identity.
> different people are subject to different rules, regulations, and laws depending on their identity.
Actually, there were wars, treaties, legal agreements, etc that created this system. It has little to do with identity, in terms of how it came about. Except, maybe, for the fact that certain "identities" were subject to genocide for much of the 20th century.
Actually, there were wars, treaties, legal agreements, etc that created this system. It has little to do with identity, in terms of how it came about. Except, maybe, for the fact that certain "identities" were subject to genocide for much of the 20th century.
What part of my post made you think I don't understand how these systems came to be in place? And what you're arguing does not follow. If I said that the Chinese Exclusion Acts in the US were based on identity, would you respond "Actually it was based on legal agreements"? It makes no sense. Clearly there are treaties and agreements that created the system that results in treating people different based on their identities.
My point is that the system currently is more harmful to everyone - specifically native people - than a consistent system based on individuals.
My point is that the system currently is more harmful to everyone - specifically native people - than a consistent system based on individuals.
" were able to simply ignore the irrelevant NIMBYs and incumbent neighbouring homeowners."
1) This is about money.
2) Vancouver has had massive building in the last 25 years, it's transformed the city. Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right.
3) That said, this land belongs to a different group, they have special privileges, they can do as they please.
1) This is about money.
2) Vancouver has had massive building in the last 25 years, it's transformed the city. Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right.
3) That said, this land belongs to a different group, they have special privileges, they can do as they please.
"Local control" is the same thing as "states' rights" in the US. States' right to do what, exactly? Local control to do what, exactly? In this case, local control is exerted to segregate geographic areas by wealth and income, and to enrich the current land owners, to the communal loss of all of society.
Vancouver landowners didn't create the massive value of their land through their labor, they were just speculators. They profit by the economic loss of everybody else, they are rentiers, parasites on the system.
If you want to hold on to a piece of land, and keep everybody else out of it, you had better start paying everybody else for that privilege. Land is fundamentally different from capital, different from wealth created by man. Its value comes from either nature, or in the case of Vancouver, by what everybody else has built up around it.
Institute a full land value tax, to return to society the wealth that landowners are stealing from society, and you can hold on to your piece of property. But you should never, ever, be able to enter into a contract with other landowners to agree to kee everyone out. That's exactly what restrictive zoning is, and it should be smashed like any other cartel that is robbing the rest of society for the benefit of the few.
Vancouver landowners didn't create the massive value of their land through their labor, they were just speculators. They profit by the economic loss of everybody else, they are rentiers, parasites on the system.
If you want to hold on to a piece of land, and keep everybody else out of it, you had better start paying everybody else for that privilege. Land is fundamentally different from capital, different from wealth created by man. Its value comes from either nature, or in the case of Vancouver, by what everybody else has built up around it.
Institute a full land value tax, to return to society the wealth that landowners are stealing from society, and you can hold on to your piece of property. But you should never, ever, be able to enter into a contract with other landowners to agree to kee everyone out. That's exactly what restrictive zoning is, and it should be smashed like any other cartel that is robbing the rest of society for the benefit of the few.
This isn't really right.
1) 'Local Control' is not some kind of vast conspiracy to suppress people. There's an almost infinite amount of living space. Not all of it is Prime Vancouver Property.
People living in a community can decide if they want it to be New York or Vienna, it's their choice, not yours.
2) "Vancouver landowners didn't create the massive value of their land through their labor"
Yes, they did!
People of Vancouver, largely made Vancouver attractive to others. That's absolutely the case.
They were not speculators they were residents.
3) "If you want to hold on to a piece of land, and keep everybody else out of it, you had better start paying everybody else for that privilege"
False! Land ownership is a right, moreover, all of them pay the necessary municipal taxes to support their community.
You, as a part of 'everyone else' have absolutely nothing to do with that equation, they owe you nothing.
As long as they are not externalizing something negative (i.e. pollution), what they do is not much of your business.
4) "Institute a full land value tax, to return to society the wealth that landowners are stealing from society" - now you're onto a complete separate issue.
5) If there's something missing in your diatribe, it's that vast amounts of land was sold to people who were not even citizens, from money arranged by ill gotten means: we 'outsource' externalizations such as pollution, lack of human rights to other nations, and the totally corrupt leaders of those nations leverage that fact, and bring the money back in one of the only things we can materially sell them, which is land.
If you're concerned about housing prices, ban foreign ownership of property, and ban handing out citizenship for people who are not even residents.
It only takes a small % of 'price insensitive demand', which provides the only 'confident signal' in a market, in order to really skew a market in one direction. In this case, up.
The difference between Montreal and Toronto/Vancouver is that Montreal has a fraction of the foreign investment in housing ownership, and surprise, reasonably affordable housing.
The 'language barrier', among other things, insulates them from some of the ravages of globalism.
If Montreal wanted to change that, they can, it's their choice.
1) 'Local Control' is not some kind of vast conspiracy to suppress people. There's an almost infinite amount of living space. Not all of it is Prime Vancouver Property.
People living in a community can decide if they want it to be New York or Vienna, it's their choice, not yours.
2) "Vancouver landowners didn't create the massive value of their land through their labor"
Yes, they did!
People of Vancouver, largely made Vancouver attractive to others. That's absolutely the case.
They were not speculators they were residents.
3) "If you want to hold on to a piece of land, and keep everybody else out of it, you had better start paying everybody else for that privilege"
False! Land ownership is a right, moreover, all of them pay the necessary municipal taxes to support their community.
You, as a part of 'everyone else' have absolutely nothing to do with that equation, they owe you nothing.
As long as they are not externalizing something negative (i.e. pollution), what they do is not much of your business.
4) "Institute a full land value tax, to return to society the wealth that landowners are stealing from society" - now you're onto a complete separate issue.
5) If there's something missing in your diatribe, it's that vast amounts of land was sold to people who were not even citizens, from money arranged by ill gotten means: we 'outsource' externalizations such as pollution, lack of human rights to other nations, and the totally corrupt leaders of those nations leverage that fact, and bring the money back in one of the only things we can materially sell them, which is land.
If you're concerned about housing prices, ban foreign ownership of property, and ban handing out citizenship for people who are not even residents.
It only takes a small % of 'price insensitive demand', which provides the only 'confident signal' in a market, in order to really skew a market in one direction. In this case, up.
The difference between Montreal and Toronto/Vancouver is that Montreal has a fraction of the foreign investment in housing ownership, and surprise, reasonably affordable housing.
The 'language barrier', among other things, insulates them from some of the ravages of globalism.
If Montreal wanted to change that, they can, it's their choice.
> Land ownership is a right
Snippets from Wikipedia:
> In Canadian law all lands are subject to the Crown, and this has been true since Britain acquired much of Eastern Canada from France by the Treaty of Paris (1763).
> In common law systems, land tenure is the legal regime in which land is owned by an individual, who is said to "hold" the land. It determines who can use land, for how long and under what conditions. [...] The sovereign monarch, known as The Crown, holds land in its own right. All private owners are either its tenants or sub-tenants.
In other words, while a municipal or provincial government might have to go through the courts to expropriate your land, the Canadian Government (and esp. the Queen acting through the Governor General) can directly take your land without passing any sort of Act, because it's fundamentally their land—they're not taking it, they're just revoking your use of it, which they granted you [or someone, at some point, by parcelling out land and writing a deed for it] in the first place.
The deed you hold to real estate in Canada (and other common-law countries) is fundamentally a granting of use of that land from the Crown to you, and a promise by the Crown to be on your side in any property dispute between you and any other subject of the Crown. But it's not a repudiation of the Crown's fundamental ownership of the land. A Canadian property deed is essentially a feudalist freehold lease, with the Crown as feudal lord and the property owner as tiller, and federal property taxes as the freehold payments.
(You might not have to pay federal property taxes if you live on land deeded from the Crown to a province—and then perhaps further deeded to a municipality—because of negotiated settlements between the Crown and the Provinces. In a sense, the Provinces are paying that tax for you, and then charging you separate taxes in turn. Make no mistake, though; you would be paying federal property taxes—and estate taxes, when those existed—if your land were deeded directly out of federal land, i.e. if you have a deed to unincorporated land in the Territories.)
---
And, inasmuch as Canadian indigenous bands hold title to land, they're still modelled within Canadian law as subjects of the Crown who've been granted the land by statute; not as, say, small land-locked foreign enclaves that the Crown has to negotiate external treaties with. Within the framework of common law, land is deeded from the Crown to the indigenous people, never from the indigenous people to the Crown.
One more Wikipedia excerpt:
> However, the British and Canadian authorities recognized that indigenous peoples already on the lands had a prior claim, aboriginal title, which was not extinguished by the arrival of the Europeans. This is in direct contrast to the situation in Australia where the continent was declared terra nullius, or vacant land, and was seized from Aboriginal peoples without compensation. In consequence, all of Canada, save a section of southern Quebec exempted by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, is subject to Aboriginal title. Native groups historically negotiated treaties in which they traded tenure to the land for annuities and certain legal exemptions and privileges. Most of Western Canada was secured in this way by the government via the Numbered Treaties of 1871 to 1921, though not all groups signed treaties. In particular, in most of British Columbia Aboriginal title has never been transferred to the Crown. Many native groups, both those that have never signed treaties or those that are dissatisfied with the execution of treaties have made formal Aboriginal land claims against the government.
Note that what the First Nations peoples of Canada were trading away in the Numbered Treaties was land tenure, not land holding. Under common law, the prior claim of title by First Nations peoples did not translate to a top-level, independent claim of ownership ("holding") over the land, but only to an automatic grant — and then only in some cases! — of tenure from the Crown to the First Nations peoples (which were then traded for other benefits.)
The very fact that the First Nations peoples with a claim to most of the land Vancouver sits on, don't have legal power to enforce that claim, is the best demonstration of the fact that there is no right to land ownership in Canada separate from the Crown granting land to you, revocably, on a case-by-case basis.
Snippets from Wikipedia:
> In Canadian law all lands are subject to the Crown, and this has been true since Britain acquired much of Eastern Canada from France by the Treaty of Paris (1763).
> In common law systems, land tenure is the legal regime in which land is owned by an individual, who is said to "hold" the land. It determines who can use land, for how long and under what conditions. [...] The sovereign monarch, known as The Crown, holds land in its own right. All private owners are either its tenants or sub-tenants.
In other words, while a municipal or provincial government might have to go through the courts to expropriate your land, the Canadian Government (and esp. the Queen acting through the Governor General) can directly take your land without passing any sort of Act, because it's fundamentally their land—they're not taking it, they're just revoking your use of it, which they granted you [or someone, at some point, by parcelling out land and writing a deed for it] in the first place.
The deed you hold to real estate in Canada (and other common-law countries) is fundamentally a granting of use of that land from the Crown to you, and a promise by the Crown to be on your side in any property dispute between you and any other subject of the Crown. But it's not a repudiation of the Crown's fundamental ownership of the land. A Canadian property deed is essentially a feudalist freehold lease, with the Crown as feudal lord and the property owner as tiller, and federal property taxes as the freehold payments.
(You might not have to pay federal property taxes if you live on land deeded from the Crown to a province—and then perhaps further deeded to a municipality—because of negotiated settlements between the Crown and the Provinces. In a sense, the Provinces are paying that tax for you, and then charging you separate taxes in turn. Make no mistake, though; you would be paying federal property taxes—and estate taxes, when those existed—if your land were deeded directly out of federal land, i.e. if you have a deed to unincorporated land in the Territories.)
---
And, inasmuch as Canadian indigenous bands hold title to land, they're still modelled within Canadian law as subjects of the Crown who've been granted the land by statute; not as, say, small land-locked foreign enclaves that the Crown has to negotiate external treaties with. Within the framework of common law, land is deeded from the Crown to the indigenous people, never from the indigenous people to the Crown.
One more Wikipedia excerpt:
> However, the British and Canadian authorities recognized that indigenous peoples already on the lands had a prior claim, aboriginal title, which was not extinguished by the arrival of the Europeans. This is in direct contrast to the situation in Australia where the continent was declared terra nullius, or vacant land, and was seized from Aboriginal peoples without compensation. In consequence, all of Canada, save a section of southern Quebec exempted by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, is subject to Aboriginal title. Native groups historically negotiated treaties in which they traded tenure to the land for annuities and certain legal exemptions and privileges. Most of Western Canada was secured in this way by the government via the Numbered Treaties of 1871 to 1921, though not all groups signed treaties. In particular, in most of British Columbia Aboriginal title has never been transferred to the Crown. Many native groups, both those that have never signed treaties or those that are dissatisfied with the execution of treaties have made formal Aboriginal land claims against the government.
Note that what the First Nations peoples of Canada were trading away in the Numbered Treaties was land tenure, not land holding. Under common law, the prior claim of title by First Nations peoples did not translate to a top-level, independent claim of ownership ("holding") over the land, but only to an automatic grant — and then only in some cases! — of tenure from the Crown to the First Nations peoples (which were then traded for other benefits.)
The very fact that the First Nations peoples with a claim to most of the land Vancouver sits on, don't have legal power to enforce that claim, is the best demonstration of the fact that there is no right to land ownership in Canada separate from the Crown granting land to you, revocably, on a case-by-case basis.
1.) Good.
2.) Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, these “communities” exist simply to separate the haves from the have-nots. Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth, the city has grown where it can and now the same people who complained are gleefully cashing out on the growth the tried so desperately to disrupt. By the way, home owners are a minority in Vancouver so I suspect most Vancouver residents just want somewhere affordable to live! And since NIMBYs own all the land, the only economically viable developments are high rises!
3.) The land was taken from them and only returned in part after decades of lawsuits. Despite that, the “community” still thinks they deserve to be able to decide what can and can’t be built.
2.) Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, these “communities” exist simply to separate the haves from the have-nots. Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth, the city has grown where it can and now the same people who complained are gleefully cashing out on the growth the tried so desperately to disrupt. By the way, home owners are a minority in Vancouver so I suspect most Vancouver residents just want somewhere affordable to live! And since NIMBYs own all the land, the only economically viable developments are high rises!
3.) The land was taken from them and only returned in part after decades of lawsuits. Despite that, the “community” still thinks they deserve to be able to decide what can and can’t be built.
"Neighborhoods in Vancouver were decided long ago and they mostly developed around racist an exclusionary ideology, "
Completely false. It's worse than false.
" Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth,"
More complete rubbish.
It's hard to read past any of that complete misinformation, but here's some help:
Any historical issues regarding segregation 1) have little to do with growth and 2) there's nothing even residual regarding housing today.
The population of Vancouver at the turn of the last century was only 26 000 people. It has nothing to do with what Vancouver in 2021.
Vancouver's growth has been very consistent since it's inception, which disputes your made up claims about 'conservatives wanting to stop growth'.
Vancouver is a city with almost a 50% foreign born population. Demand to live there among 7 Billion on earthy who might want to live there is almost infinite.
If Vancouver wants to turn into Pacific New York, that's fine.
If they want to keep it mostly homes, that's also fine, it's entirely up to them, not ideologues on the internet.
Completely false. It's worse than false.
" Despite conservative efforts to eliminate growth,"
More complete rubbish.
It's hard to read past any of that complete misinformation, but here's some help:
Any historical issues regarding segregation 1) have little to do with growth and 2) there's nothing even residual regarding housing today.
The population of Vancouver at the turn of the last century was only 26 000 people. It has nothing to do with what Vancouver in 2021.
Vancouver's growth has been very consistent since it's inception, which disputes your made up claims about 'conservatives wanting to stop growth'.
Vancouver is a city with almost a 50% foreign born population. Demand to live there among 7 Billion on earthy who might want to live there is almost infinite.
If Vancouver wants to turn into Pacific New York, that's fine.
If they want to keep it mostly homes, that's also fine, it's entirely up to them, not ideologues on the internet.
I was born in Vancouver, I live downtown. You seem to be ill-informed of Vancouver's past, or are deliberately trying to white-wash its history. Take a look at Harland Bartholomew's contribution to Vancouver's city planning[0] or hear from many local historians and experts on the development of Vancouver's zoning and districts[1]. I'm sure it's impossible that Chinatown's relatively poor condition, or the complete razing of Hogan's Alley has no roots in racism, and certainly I'm imagining that residual impact.
Suburbs were designed to isolate their residents from the poor (and predominantly visible-minority) people who lived in the denser urban areas. Single-family zoning was created to make illegal the development of more dense/affordable living options such as row houses or apartment buildings. That is limiting growth, clear and simple. It is limiting growth (by your own admission!) to "keep it mostly homes" as opposed to turning the city into "Pacific New York."
I said nothing about Vancouver's growth having been "stopped." What I said was, there were - and continues to be - efforts to eliminate growth. The city grows despite the NIMBYs (albeit less quickly and less efficiently), but it is absolutely their objective to inhibit growth for their own benefit. Growth is often exponential, too, so if the city has been growing somewhat linearly that's a good indication that its growth is being inhibited.
If people want to live here, good. Let them in, let them build. Not sure why you believe it's your right to live here and keep others out. Perhaps you're someone who has benefited greatly from Vancouver's growth, despite yourself.
[0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/articl... [1] https://www.straight.com/news/734491/history-shows-racism-ha...
Suburbs were designed to isolate their residents from the poor (and predominantly visible-minority) people who lived in the denser urban areas. Single-family zoning was created to make illegal the development of more dense/affordable living options such as row houses or apartment buildings. That is limiting growth, clear and simple. It is limiting growth (by your own admission!) to "keep it mostly homes" as opposed to turning the city into "Pacific New York."
I said nothing about Vancouver's growth having been "stopped." What I said was, there were - and continues to be - efforts to eliminate growth. The city grows despite the NIMBYs (albeit less quickly and less efficiently), but it is absolutely their objective to inhibit growth for their own benefit. Growth is often exponential, too, so if the city has been growing somewhat linearly that's a good indication that its growth is being inhibited.
If people want to live here, good. Let them in, let them build. Not sure why you believe it's your right to live here and keep others out. Perhaps you're someone who has benefited greatly from Vancouver's growth, despite yourself.
[0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver/articl... [1] https://www.straight.com/news/734491/history-shows-racism-ha...
> Every community has the right to control what it's going to be. If Van residents don't want to continue to jam everyone into skyscrapers, that is their right.
How far does the "right to control" extend? What if Van residents don't want Jews or Black people in their community? What if they don't want poor people? What if they just don't want any more people at all? Do they have the right to do any or all of these things?
How far does the "right to control" extend? What if Van residents don't want Jews or Black people in their community? What if they don't want poor people? What if they just don't want any more people at all? Do they have the right to do any or all of these things?
"But what if the Grocery Store wants to ban Blacks! We can't have them decide what to carry, where to build, what prices to set!"
It's not unreasonable to think about the limits of what kinds of control communities can have, but as you've posed it, it's completely rhetorical.
Nobody is 'banning Blacks' from anywhere. The level of hysteria on these kinds of things is creaking into every discussion even when it's mostly inappropriate.
Vancouver has a busy city with X homes, Y flats, a certain infrastructure and that's that.
If they want to decide to not want skyscrapers everywhere, they can do that, and it has nothing to do with 'banning a group'.
'Tolerant and Progressive' Vancouver has made very material choices that have made living their excessively difficult for people living on the margins, and highly favourable to very wealthy non-citizens who want a place to keep their money safe. Which is their choice, but it's an odd one, more importantly, I don't think communities generally make choices to 'stop poor people', that's not part of the cards, rather policies indirectly do that.
If there is a systematic issue at play here, it may be the 'growth mindset' of new world city managers and businesses, all of whom want 'more sales, more revenue, more tax revenue, more leverage, more power' etc. 'to build that thing and provide that service', never really contemplating something resembling actual sustainability.
It's not unreasonable to think about the limits of what kinds of control communities can have, but as you've posed it, it's completely rhetorical.
Nobody is 'banning Blacks' from anywhere. The level of hysteria on these kinds of things is creaking into every discussion even when it's mostly inappropriate.
Vancouver has a busy city with X homes, Y flats, a certain infrastructure and that's that.
If they want to decide to not want skyscrapers everywhere, they can do that, and it has nothing to do with 'banning a group'.
'Tolerant and Progressive' Vancouver has made very material choices that have made living their excessively difficult for people living on the margins, and highly favourable to very wealthy non-citizens who want a place to keep their money safe. Which is their choice, but it's an odd one, more importantly, I don't think communities generally make choices to 'stop poor people', that's not part of the cards, rather policies indirectly do that.
If there is a systematic issue at play here, it may be the 'growth mindset' of new world city managers and businesses, all of whom want 'more sales, more revenue, more tax revenue, more leverage, more power' etc. 'to build that thing and provide that service', never really contemplating something resembling actual sustainability.
> If they want to decide to not want [ ... ]
As I said in another comment, one of the problems with this approach is the the actual process of decision making for such issues is deeply flawed. The question of who "they" is and precisely how "they decide" is far from simple; the answer is certainly not "the citizens of Vancouver".
Retrospectively, I do think that my comparison with bans on various protected groups was a bit silly. Even so, these decisions are not some simple mapping from "the will of the people", and that means that it's not as simple as "they get to decide".
As I said in another comment, one of the problems with this approach is the the actual process of decision making for such issues is deeply flawed. The question of who "they" is and precisely how "they decide" is far from simple; the answer is certainly not "the citizens of Vancouver".
Retrospectively, I do think that my comparison with bans on various protected groups was a bit silly. Even so, these decisions are not some simple mapping from "the will of the people", and that means that it's not as simple as "they get to decide".
This headline might lead you to believe this is a developer taking advantage/stealing from a First Nations Tribe - not the case, this is actually being done by the group themselves! Really cool style and density right here makes sense - it's not like they are developing a section of Pacific Spirit Park for this.
Right, so the tribe (band?) leadership will take advantage to enrich themselves. There is zero chance this will actually benefit the "rank and file" - like all handouts, it will just be stolen by the leadership and friends
They are not just enriching themselves, they are enriching thousands of other people that will now have access to Vancouver that didn't before.
The only reason to deny something like this is to create artificial scarcity to enrich current Vancouver landowners, who have already been enriched enough, thank you very much. How many times the average wage does a typical Kits house run these days? That's all theft from the rest of society, and should be taxed away and returned to the rest of society.
The only reason to deny something like this is to create artificial scarcity to enrich current Vancouver landowners, who have already been enriched enough, thank you very much. How many times the average wage does a typical Kits house run these days? That's all theft from the rest of society, and should be taxed away and returned to the rest of society.
Depends on the tribe / band. Some are much better than others. In the US, you can generally see it with the casino profits (well, except for states like North Dakota where the state compact doesn't allow direct payments).
The casino profits frequently benefit a select few who are a part of the club, and then the club doesn't let anyone else in, keeping the profits for themselves. Even if you can show you have 100% native ancestry of your given tribe, it is not a given that you will be allowed to officially become part of the tribe.
Honestly, it just sounds like you’re hand waving the same old line. I’d love to see a citation or two.
My wife’s band settled a huge land claim not too far back. This land claim resulted in a cash payout to all 3000 band members and the rest of the money was put into a trust.
My wife’s band settled a huge land claim not too far back. This land claim resulted in a cash payout to all 3000 band members and the rest of the money was put into a trust.
How many members are there of Shakopee Mdewakanton? How many would like to claim membership based on their heritage, even discounting the $X00,000/month check that each member gets?
There appears to be between 400-600 some members and from what I’ve read, it seems like all the members are receiving a nice share of revenue.
How many would like to claim membership?
I don’t know, you tell me. It seems like their membership grew, so I would guess people have claimed membership based on their heritage and that their membership was honored.
Do you have any specific information you can provide or is it all hand-waving and rhetorical questions?
How many would like to claim membership?
I don’t know, you tell me. It seems like their membership grew, so I would guess people have claimed membership based on their heritage and that their membership was honored.
Do you have any specific information you can provide or is it all hand-waving and rhetorical questions?
Ah, the old "tree covered building" render. Putting trees on buildings might make them green as in color, but doesn't make them "green" as in environmentally sound. Supporting all those trees requires a lot of concrete, and the maintenance of the trees is another issue. On balance, it's a gimmick [1].
There are few real world examples of buildings like this (one in Italy I believe) but it ended up being a far cry from the original renders.
1. https://persquaremile.com/2013/03/07/trees-dont-like-it-up-t...
There are few real world examples of buildings like this (one in Italy I believe) but it ended up being a far cry from the original renders.
1. https://persquaremile.com/2013/03/07/trees-dont-like-it-up-t...
You're right about the unfeasibility of trees on buildings, but one clarification is that these buildings are actually Mass Timber construction, so they're using wood as the main support structure instead of steel and concrete. That's one of the reasons this project is going to be able to be carbon-neutral if not carbon negative
I've lived in an apartment building with grassy shrubs on the facade, I liked it!
They were a low-maintenance species, and had automated irrigation in the soil so nether me or the building owner had to touch them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're a net environmental cost, but the cost has to be small compared to the overall impact of the building construction, and they have other benefits.
The plants look nice from inside and outside, provide a bit of privacy without blocking too much light, and deaden road noise.
They were a low-maintenance species, and had automated irrigation in the soil so nether me or the building owner had to touch them.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're a net environmental cost, but the cost has to be small compared to the overall impact of the building construction, and they have other benefits.
The plants look nice from inside and outside, provide a bit of privacy without blocking too much light, and deaden road noise.
The amount of concrete is pretty insignificant compared to variability of building operations in terms of heating/cooling. I've spent a ton of time reviewing embodied carbon, since that's probably the strongest critique against this sort of structure, but I can't find numbers that make me the least bit concerned.
Plus,people like greenery, if that's a "gimmick" bring it on.
In addition, compared to the major consumer of greenhouse gases, poor land use requiring massive personal vehicle use, and the poor thermal envelopes with far larger surface to volume ration that happens with single unit development, these sort of critiques are missing the forest for the trees.
Plus,people like greenery, if that's a "gimmick" bring it on.
In addition, compared to the major consumer of greenhouse gases, poor land use requiring massive personal vehicle use, and the poor thermal envelopes with far larger surface to volume ration that happens with single unit development, these sort of critiques are missing the forest for the trees.
[deleted]
Really excited to see this move forward. It's been announced for many months, and been in design for a long time.
This is what can happen when NIMBYs are finally cut out of the picture. So many people's lives will be improved by this project.
This is what can happen when NIMBYs are finally cut out of the picture. So many people's lives will be improved by this project.
I think the worry about overloaded resources is, maybe you need density first, then you can have funding for services created from the tax base.
It's like the housing version of the field of dreams.
It's like the housing version of the field of dreams.
Actually everyone's lives will be collectively worsened. More development means more pollution, more depletion of natural resources. What is actually sustainable is less housing, not more housing.
We have tried four decades of your "let's limit housing" plan in California. In contrast to improving people's lives, it's made everybody's lives worse, through these means:
1) massive commutes by car 2) astronomical housing prices 3) forcing people out of state due to these massive housing prices 4) increased pollution because of increased commutes from further and further exurbs 5) massive homelessness from those that aren't able to move before they run out of money, or who hit a massive car or medical expense as the struggle to pay for housing.
Take a peak at the carbon consumption of households in dense areas and suburban areas across the US:
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cmjones/viz/USHouseho...
Dense urban living is sustainable, suburban living is burning the planet.
The world needs a lot more of these towers. If there's going to be less of any sort kf housing, it's time to tear down suburban homes.
1) massive commutes by car 2) astronomical housing prices 3) forcing people out of state due to these massive housing prices 4) increased pollution because of increased commutes from further and further exurbs 5) massive homelessness from those that aren't able to move before they run out of money, or who hit a massive car or medical expense as the struggle to pay for housing.
Take a peak at the carbon consumption of households in dense areas and suburban areas across the US:
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cmjones/viz/USHouseho...
Dense urban living is sustainable, suburban living is burning the planet.
The world needs a lot more of these towers. If there's going to be less of any sort kf housing, it's time to tear down suburban homes.
more housing is terrible for the environment
Okay Ted, then where shall they be housed? Unless you’re planning to cull people who dare to live in apartments, they’ve got to live somewhere. I guess you think we should close the door behind you? You and your friends were the last legitimate residents. Everyone else is responsible for growth, not you?
So we’re back to the original question: rural, sub-urban or city? City living is by comparison actually the least environmentally damaging. (If you think cities are bad, wait until you try housing 8 billion people in single family homes.)
So we’re back to the original question: rural, sub-urban or city? City living is by comparison actually the least environmentally damaging. (If you think cities are bad, wait until you try housing 8 billion people in single family homes.)
I'll volunteer to be culled but I'd like Ted to go first then see how I feel after the Earth is saved.
Dense housing like this is much more environmentally friendly and sustainable.
if you've ever seen NYC or hong kong or any place like that, you know it's a wasteland.
nice places have very little housing
nice places have very little housing
Writing from Hong Kong, I wonder what you mean by wasteland?
If you've been in a protected nature area, then you know what I mean by nature.
That really doesn't answer my question. But I'm getting the impression you're not here for conversation so never mind...
Lives of Squamish Nation members will certainly be bettered, which is why they agreed to the arrangement.
What you mean is fewer people?
All right, Thanos.
Comparing him to Thanos isn’t fair. Thanos had an actionable (albeit unpopular) solution.
This vague “actually it’s worse” nonsense is meaningless babble because it projects the problem through one simple dimension (number of houses) and ignores important things like average energy consumption per housing unit and average energy consumption for transportation.
This vague “actually it’s worse” nonsense is meaningless babble because it projects the problem through one simple dimension (number of houses) and ignores important things like average energy consumption per housing unit and average energy consumption for transportation.
[deleted]
The downvotes and comments seem to be rather narrow minded. As the Wachowski's pointed out (years ago now) in the voice of agent Smith "You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area."
This point of view seems far more narrow minded, to the point where it doesn't even deal with problems it claims to be concerned about.
If you are concerned about "multiplying," then refusing to build housing does nothing to fix that. People living in cities with high incomes ans education and freedom to control their lives have fewer children than those who are poorer and live in less developed parts of the world. If you actually care about "multiplying" then you should be encouraging as many people as possible to move into urban areas for the greater economic, educational, and general awareness of the number of humans around them.
Secondly, if you are the least bit concerned about natural resources, you should also be encouraging more people to live in urban areas, where they consumer far less resources, far less fossil fuels, and generally have far less impact on nature.
Thirdly, that quote from a fictional character is just utter bullshit. Nobody is leaving Vancouver because they consumed all the resources, quite the opposite. People want to move there from other places, and not spread out. Opposition to projects like this forces people to spread out against their will.
The only thing opposition to this project does is increase environmental impact of people, reduce their happiness and access to the high value resources of the city, and most crucially of all to current power holders, put people out of sight while they consume more and are less happy for it.
So really, opposition to projects like this can only be viewed as an extreme form of greed. Adding in supposed concerns about nature, or multiplying, just points out that a person is just fine with both of things, as long as it's not insight. That is a fundamentally thoughtless, selfish, and asocial way to view the world, and it has caused immense harm over the last few decades.
If you are concerned about "multiplying," then refusing to build housing does nothing to fix that. People living in cities with high incomes ans education and freedom to control their lives have fewer children than those who are poorer and live in less developed parts of the world. If you actually care about "multiplying" then you should be encouraging as many people as possible to move into urban areas for the greater economic, educational, and general awareness of the number of humans around them.
Secondly, if you are the least bit concerned about natural resources, you should also be encouraging more people to live in urban areas, where they consumer far less resources, far less fossil fuels, and generally have far less impact on nature.
Thirdly, that quote from a fictional character is just utter bullshit. Nobody is leaving Vancouver because they consumed all the resources, quite the opposite. People want to move there from other places, and not spread out. Opposition to projects like this forces people to spread out against their will.
The only thing opposition to this project does is increase environmental impact of people, reduce their happiness and access to the high value resources of the city, and most crucially of all to current power holders, put people out of sight while they consume more and are less happy for it.
So really, opposition to projects like this can only be viewed as an extreme form of greed. Adding in supposed concerns about nature, or multiplying, just points out that a person is just fine with both of things, as long as it's not insight. That is a fundamentally thoughtless, selfish, and asocial way to view the world, and it has caused immense harm over the last few decades.
If realized, this might be one of the first Solarpunk building developments.
Genuinely excited for that. I love the Solarpunk aesthetic. The Park Royal in Singapore is awesome. Qiyi City Forest Gardens may not have worked out but it’s a good look for sure.
It’s fantastic that they’re bypassing the NIMBYs and building high density, but it’s terrible that they’re building the 10,000th attempt at modern architecture’s worst idea, “towers in the park”, which fails every time it is tried.
"Towers in the park" may not be for everyone (certainly, the cost of the model restricts who can afford to live there unless the government subsidizes), but in my experience it's working pretty well a lot of places. Where I live in Hong Kong, towers built atop mall/park combinations are some of the most attractive places to live. Convenience with public transit, child care and shopping all in walking distance. Green space for family walks and exercise, decent air flow for an urban setting. I'm a fan
These arguments about the NIMBYs are a bit ridiculous.
Every community has the right to build, or not, as they chose.
You have no say in someone else's community.
Even then, Vancouver has added quite a bit over the last 25 years.
Finally, the notion that 'constant building' will make homes more affordable is just not true, the most dense places in the US are among the most expensive.
Given that this is a different bit of land, under different governance, they can do as they please, that's fine.
Every community has the right to build, or not, as they chose.
You have no say in someone else's community.
Even then, Vancouver has added quite a bit over the last 25 years.
Finally, the notion that 'constant building' will make homes more affordable is just not true, the most dense places in the US are among the most expensive.
Given that this is a different bit of land, under different governance, they can do as they please, that's fine.
>You have no say in someone else's community.
Fantastic. You have no say where the jobs are and you aren't allowed to go where the jobs are. Absolutely perfect.
>Finally, the notion that 'constant building' will make homes more affordable is just not true, the most dense places in the US are among the most expensive.
Developers aren't running a charity. They only fulfill existing demand and if you don't even do that things are going to become even less affordable.
Fantastic. You have no say where the jobs are and you aren't allowed to go where the jobs are. Absolutely perfect.
>Finally, the notion that 'constant building' will make homes more affordable is just not true, the most dense places in the US are among the most expensive.
Developers aren't running a charity. They only fulfill existing demand and if you don't even do that things are going to become even less affordable.
"You have no say where the jobs are"
Anyone can list jobs anywhere they want.
"you aren't allowed to go where the jobs are"
You can go anywhere you want, so long as someone is willing to sell you or rent you a place to live.
"They only fulfill existing demand"
The 'demand' for living in places like SF, NY etc. is infinite. There's no such thing as 'existing demand'.
None of your arguments are working out here.
Anyone can list jobs anywhere they want.
"you aren't allowed to go where the jobs are"
You can go anywhere you want, so long as someone is willing to sell you or rent you a place to live.
"They only fulfill existing demand"
The 'demand' for living in places like SF, NY etc. is infinite. There's no such thing as 'existing demand'.
None of your arguments are working out here.
> Every community has the right to build, or not, as they chose.
The problem with this way of thinking about it is that communities are not people, and they do not "make a choice" in an organic, unified way. Instead, questions about development get resolved through messy, often complex political processes, with the outcome often reflecting specific subsets of the community rather than the whole.
In addition, there's the time preference problem, in which the decisions and choices of today's community is given excessive weight compared to those of the many different future communities that could emerge with different decisions.
The problem with this way of thinking about it is that communities are not people, and they do not "make a choice" in an organic, unified way. Instead, questions about development get resolved through messy, often complex political processes, with the outcome often reflecting specific subsets of the community rather than the whole.
In addition, there's the time preference problem, in which the decisions and choices of today's community is given excessive weight compared to those of the many different future communities that could emerge with different decisions.
It's fair to point out that building and permits may not be very democratic, but the argument being made here is generally that people in a community shouldn't be allowed to decided.
Some people believe that they ought to be able to have homes bulldozed and skycrapers build 'because they want something'.
There is basically infinity livable space in the US, so find a place that works. Employers will have to adjust to cost of living.
Some people believe that they ought to be able to have homes bulldozed and skycrapers build 'because they want something'.
There is basically infinity livable space in the US, so find a place that works. Employers will have to adjust to cost of living.
The project looks amazing but Westbank doesn't inspire confidence.
There's been a lot of issues coming up with Westbank's Vancouver House recently. Underground explosion months ago, flooding a week or so ago.
Hopefully these new buildings are more reliable
Wow. The renderings are always misleading, but there is no way this type of project could easily be approved in a traditional planning process
https://senakw.com/img/vision/MountainTowersfromVanierPark.j...
They obviously did not try to fit into "neighborhood character" - very impressive though looking at details (the bikeable underground garage, the density + green space combo - super interesting).
https://senakw.com/img/vision/MountainTowersfromVanierPark.j...
They obviously did not try to fit into "neighborhood character" - very impressive though looking at details (the bikeable underground garage, the density + green space combo - super interesting).
What I love about this project is that it's a huge win-win for both the Squamish nation, and Canadian vancouverites. They're building affordable housing for members of the Squamish nation, bringing their people back together onto their native land and funding it by renting out market-rate housing and offices to non-native Vancouverites.
I'm very excited about this project. I wish it all the success in the world, and I hope other housing-starved localities are taking notes
I'm very excited about this project. I wish it all the success in the world, and I hope other housing-starved localities are taking notes
The renderings are awesome because it's the phase when architects let their true artistic vision shine without much thought to cost. Then reality hits, and the buildings (usually) never look even 25% as nice. But in this case if they can get 25% of that vision in reality they'll still be better looker buildings than 98% of what you see in Vancouver today.
> ... because the reserve land is not subject to the bylaws of the city that it surrounds, it will also feature a style and scale of density more typically found in cities like Hong Kong.
Looks like a nice departure from the upsetting seafoam green copy/pasted Concord Pacific towers that are built everywhere.
I wonder what this will do the home prices of adjacent properties in the Kits, one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in the area.
[deleted]
It looked a lot nicer when it was just nature
Everyone who is able to live in a dense downtown apartment is another acre of forest outside the city not razed to build McMansions and 6-lane highways. These buildings will house thousands of people and keep thousands of gas-guzzlers off the road since these buildings have such excellent public transportation options.
I'm all for letting nature be nature, but how about we let cities be cities?
I'm all for letting nature be nature, but how about we let cities be cities?
I don't expect that the people buying the 3000sqft McMansions with a two bay garage and an eighth acre in the back are the same wanting to live in a 1000sqft loft with shared greenspace.
Some of those McMansion buyers would opt to live in a condo downtown, within walking distance of their work and numerous ameneties, if they weren't priced out.
Sure. Maybe some of them. But even if you build it, they won’t all come.
All of them don't have to come for it to reduce urban sprawl.
There is a tremendous negative cost to keeping this little tiny chunk as "just nature." If it weren't for these buildings, we would need thousands and thousands of homes sprawled out across many square miles, requiring roads, and literally millions of vehicle miles every year.
This sort of structure preserves nature and allows thousands of people to experience Vancouver that would not be able to otherwise.
Stanley Park is close by for those who want actual nature, rather than the little speck of lawns that was where these buildings are being built.
This sort of structure preserves nature and allows thousands of people to experience Vancouver that would not be able to otherwise.
Stanley Park is close by for those who want actual nature, rather than the little speck of lawns that was where these buildings are being built.
> If it weren't for these buildings, we would need thousands and thousands of homes sprawled out across many square miles.
I mean you could build these towers elsewherez perhaps even demolishing some existing single family dwellings.
Youve made a bit of a false dichotomy here.
I mean you could build these towers elsewherez perhaps even demolishing some existing single family dwellings.
Youve made a bit of a false dichotomy here.
Maybe there’s a reason we don’t see skyscrapers out in the suburbs?
The whole deal here is that this project happens only because 1) the Squamish got some of their land back, and it's in an urban area with all the infrastructure one could want, and 2) as reserve land, it’s not subject to the city’s zoning laws, so they YIMBY'd a forward-thinking project.
The whole deal here is that this project happens only because 1) the Squamish got some of their land back, and it's in an urban area with all the infrastructure one could want, and 2) as reserve land, it’s not subject to the city’s zoning laws, so they YIMBY'd a forward-thinking project.
This is not really a false dichotomy. The only other option would be to delay/cancel this project to just do the same thing in the same way somewhere else, which isn't really that different of an option.
For your example, it is almost literally impossible to destroy enough SFH's to build skyscraper apartments (where do these people go?) even if these SFH lots were somehow also zoned for massive skyscrapers (which they are certainly not).
I think your example is not necessarily a bad idea either, it's just an impossible idea. Nowadays we just can't simply displace thousands of people and then build structures in areas that aren't zoned for those structures.
For your example, it is almost literally impossible to destroy enough SFH's to build skyscraper apartments (where do these people go?) even if these SFH lots were somehow also zoned for massive skyscrapers (which they are certainly not).
I think your example is not necessarily a bad idea either, it's just an impossible idea. Nowadays we just can't simply displace thousands of people and then build structures in areas that aren't zoned for those structures.
Could you point to this other plot of land?
This land is Squamish land, which is the only reason it's getting built. Otherwise greedy neighbors would block it.
This land is Squamish land, which is the only reason it's getting built. Otherwise greedy neighbors would block it.
What?
You said it's either build this or build thousands and thousands of homes sprawled across many miles.
Where's the land for those thousands of homes coming from?
You said it's either build this or build thousands and thousands of homes sprawled across many miles.
Where's the land for those thousands of homes coming from?
Building sprawl on green fields is the default, it's legal nearly everywhere. Head out past the current exurban boundaries, and it's easy to plop down acres of single unit housing structures.
These tall buildings are illegal nearly everywhere, and most importantly, they are illegal where they make sense to build, near job centers.
This difference, between what is legal and what is illegal to build, is why the alternative to these towers is sprawl. There is no other plot of land where they could be built, but people still need housing.
These tall buildings are illegal nearly everywhere, and most importantly, they are illegal where they make sense to build, near job centers.
This difference, between what is legal and what is illegal to build, is why the alternative to these towers is sprawl. There is no other plot of land where they could be built, but people still need housing.
It's bought, and developed in ways that would/will not be stoppable by regular NIMBY-style activity, because the SFH etc. model is well inside current zoning.
Yes. The dozens of acres that don't need to be razed to build crappy single-family houses with it required streets and infrastructure just saved you a bunch of greenery.
[deleted]
Sadly the rest of the development in Vancouver is no where near the pace it needs to be to keep housing prices down, so this is merely a drop in the bucket. And it’s also unfortunately perpetuating the idea that the only housing that can be built are single family homes and high rises.
I kind of wish developers would just start developing multi-plexes illegally. Good luck arguing it’s environmentally sustainable to block multi-family homes by forcing new developments to be torn down. Obviously this is unrealistic but it’s the kind of activism that needs to happen to overpower the powerful minority of homeowners in this province.