The Sun graphically covers the new census data:
In the leafy confines of Vancouver’s upscale Shaughnessy neighbourhood, the population decreased by 140 residents … Dunbar, Arbutus Ridge and Kerrisdale neighbourhoods declined by an average of three percent.
Andy Yan puts the snarky cat among the comfortable pigeons:
Yeah, where should that census take us?
But the reasons for population decline in those neighbourhoods probably have nothing much to do with density. Certainly plenty of attention has been focussed recently on ownership by absent foreigners – but then that also seemed to be the case in the downtown condos where no-one saw lights on at night. Under occupation is probably significant simply due to demographics – boomers who bought before prices became out of reach for average wage earner, whose kids have left the nest, but who still like gardening, for instance. The pace of redevelopment has been significant in recent years, so some of the empty space will have been houses that were building sites on census night.
Those could be reasons. But none of them justifies continuing to restrict any and all building to be single family detached. Let people build what they want and see what happens. Maybe all those gardeners will stay put, and nothing will happen. Maybe it will be the next Kits, the next Mount Pleasant or the next West End. As long as it’s illegal to build those places, we can’t seriously claim that their population decline is a natural consequence of people’s preference for gardening and rebuilding single family detached into new single family detached.
The region wide map of population increases and decreases is like a 1:1 mapping to places where new development is allowed and where it’s disallowed. Langley is leading the region in growth because the Township is gonzo for townhouses, and is covering Willoughby with them. Older established areas of Langley have no growth and appear in red. Similarly new development is allowed in Mount Pleasant and has big growth, but development is disallowed in Shaughnessy. Sure one can technically build a laneway house in the West Side, but that doesn’t seem to have created a great deal of growth at all. Perhaps Airbnb is to blame for that.
These development patterns are looking rather inequitable. Why is growth being forced into being concentrated in one spot while another area of the city empties out because growth is disallowed there?
In the Flats the city is now considering converting irreplaceable industrial land into residential. Why on earth are we doing this when other residential parts of the city are stagnating so badly that they’re declining in population?
Some infill development and conversions are allowed in Shaughnessy, but under very strict heritage preservation regulations. In one case an A-rated Samuel Maclure house was carefully moved to the front corner of the lot and a row of Georgian townhouses was built on the sloped lot in back, overlooking Granville x 16th.
The tree loss, affordability and low average density increase resulting these developments aside, it’s not strictly true that infill isn’t allowed even off The Crescent in First Shaughnessy.
Any big city needs areas for the poor, for the affluent, for large estate homes and for tiny THs and micro-houses. Some mixed, and some apart.
To me, it makes no sense to densify Shaughnessy. Why not along Cambie Street subway line, or E-W or N-S arteries first ? There is plenty of densification room to be had before one needs to touch Shaughnessy or other affluent areas.
We can discuss taxation levels that are too low for foreign owners in my opinion, as I believe we ought to TRIPLE property taxes throughout the Lower Mainland and then rebate a major chunk of the increase to seniors and income producing working tax payers. Real estate is grossly under-taxed and income grossly overtaxed in Canada but especially BC ! The wealthy to merely affluent (both local, foreign or foreign funded locals) know that and behave rationally.
Why do areas for the poor and ares for the rich require land to be pre designated as such by the power of the state?
Of course there will always be poor people and rich people, but there’s nothing natural, preordained or inevitable the thicket of rules erected by the rich to prevent people of lesser means from becoming their neighbors. If you do believe these laws are natural, then perhaps you also believe there should be laws forbidding rich people from living in areas designated to be poor?
If a piece of land is zoned single family and is 2 acres it is EXPENSIVE. if it is zoned 30 stories and rentals are forced to 25% of the floor space at 25% below market you get different people to show up to buy or rent that space !
No one is forced to live anywhere, and of course there are some rich people that chose to live near social housing projects, drug injection sites, on noisy streets or in tiny condos with no views. Some, but not many.
As stated a healthy mix of dense and spacious, areas for the affluent and the poor, for singles and families of 15, tall high rises and low rises are required in a diverse are such as MetroVan. Shaughnessy is no such place, among many others, to force density. Density exists to create cheaper housing or more housing, and cheap to me implies less desirable land, and more implies variety where appropriate, and there are many other high end, medium or low end areas better suited than the best part of Vancouver. UEL is another such expensive enclave, as is Southlands, pockets of N or W Van, Surrey or Richmond.
Who said anything about forcing density?
I just think it should be allowed.
It’s their property, they can do what they like.
Why are you in favour of forcing people to live in ghettos according to their income?
City has zoning and as such you canNOT do what you want with your property. Only Houston to my knowledge allows that.
Poverty reduces choice. That is how the world works.
In a discussion about whether we have gone to far with zoning, or whether or not we should have zoning, your contribution to the debate is, “City has zoning”?
Of course poverty reduces choice. Did anyone dispute that? The question isn’t “should poor people get to choose mansions” the question is “should poor people be allowed to live in small apartments in buildings next to mansions if their landlord can obtain the land and make it pencil”?
Why is it illegal to subdivide a lot in Shaughnessy so that one may live in the city (if one chooses) on less land?
Why is it illegal to build a building for more than one family in Shaughnessy so that each family can live in the city (if they choose) on less land?
and so on and so on..
You’re taking a deeply anti-market construct – the state should decide where you live – and dressing it up as a natural consequence of markets.
House values plummet if a high end home sits in a sea of low end homes. Vancouver has PLENTY of areas where add’l higher density makes far more sense than Shaughnessy. It may make sense to allow a 1 acre site to be 2-3 1/2 to 1/3 acre sites there, but NOT multi-family.
Only the socialists and the (poor?) envious would vote for far higher density in one of the most exclusive areas of Vancouver.
I would think that anyone who believes in free markets would vote for freedom to build what you like on the property that you own.
Tokyo has a free market. Owners can build what they want. No shortage of property.
Shaughnessy is literally bracketed by public transit, close to major employers, parks, and schools. It is hugely underutilized as a location for housing within the city. There’s no better place for densification in the City of Vancouver. Wannabe-wealthies have to kowtow to the folks they wish to emulate — and that’s why some will countenance its exclusion from market forces while uttering whar-garbl about socialism. Zero logic to that position.
@ChrisK: what is yoru ideal version of Shaughnessy 2.0 ? More townhouses ? Smaller houses ? 20+ story highrises ? Drug injection sites ?
Where would the folks who live in Shaughnessy today move to ?
1) Sure, all of the above.
2) Let the market decide.
Why does densification trump existing home owners rights? Don’t we need a few high end areas in a city like Vancouver to keep the city attractive for all ? We honestly think a sea of high rises is better ? Does a city not need a mix of areas, incl “enclaves” for the “boring rich” ? Or are you saying we have far too many high end areas ?
I am saying that Shaughnessy is a natural and logical place to densify in Vancouver, as it is underutilized space near downtown with existing transit service available. That is all. There is no absolutist angle to my comments suggesting a ‘sea of high rises’ or emptying the city of rich people. Feel free to continue to argue on behalf of the wealthy. But please do so with regard to the actual remarks being made rather than attempting to put up straw men.
What’s next, Thomas? Gated enclaves? High income ghettos?
I once lived in Shaughnessy in a carved up mansion and survived on a low working class income, then student loans. I probably would have stayed for years if it wasn’t for the shared bathrooms (albeit with 7-foot clawfoot tubs and arrays of chromed pipes sticking out of the marble tile floors) and the party animals upstairs. I took the bus to work exclusively, a 10-minute ride almost door-to-door. I loved walking throughout the quiet, leafy neighbourhood and never felt unwelcome. I know firsthand that diversification makes for a healthy community.
Your perceptions are different and not based on reality.
@Alex: please accept the fact that people of wealth have many choices, and many chose to live in expensive homes with big yards, with views, on a lake, river, ocean or mountain. As such any city ought to provide SOME space for it. Not every sub-community needs diversity and not everybody loves ( poor, average ) neighbors but rather mingles with folks of the same class. That my ( young? ) friend is the reality of the world, whether you like it or not. There are plenty of other neighbourhoods in the city which are not as high end, or far more diversified, or “healthy” as you call it for the mere normals like you and me to live.
As stated earlier, a city needs variety, including affluent neighbourhoods. At least – unlike the US – these communities are not gated in Canada and as such, the roads, bike lanes and sidewalk are open for all to drive through and enjoy a few minutes of peace and quiet.
Well, Shaughnessy is diversifying, whether you prescribe it or not. For now it’s limited to cottages in the back yards of mansions, and a few mansions carved up into condos with strict heritage protocols for people who are not quite in the top tier of income. I predict that the wide open vast open yards are next in line.
I don’t have any issues with multi-family townhouses and mansions-to-apartments with respect to diverse class and incomes, as long as building heritage and site character are respected.
Look closely at the map and we see substantial areas of Vancouver in decline, with what can only be called tired and aging single storey housing stock.
Where is the decline? In, Strathcona, Kensington Cedar-Cottage (on both sides of Kingsway), Renfrew-Collingwood, Killarney, Victoria-Fraserview, across to Sunset ands South Vancouver and up again to South Cambie and Mount Pleasant.
Yes, Shaughnessy too but, if you want to develop affordable housing you do not start where the land is the most expensive, in Shaughnessy. That might come later. First, start where there are masses of single family homes close to transit. Start by up zoning all those areas immediately to townhouse and medium high-rise to 6 floors.
This is the only way to ease the massive growth that is happening in Langley (+12.6%) and Surrey (10.5%), which is where the now grown children of those old areas are moving to.
Lots of those neighbourhoods are already on the verge of densifying. Strathcona and Chinatown and Chinatown for instance have had a fair amount of construction currently ongoing.
I think much of Kensington-Cedar Cottage is shown as growing at over 5% – which would make sense given ongoing results of the RM-1 & RT-10 up-zoning some years back.
It looks to me like it’s the eastern portion of Mount Pleasant where the population has dropped slightly, an area where the existing duplex zoning hasn’t changed for many years, and where some rooming houses may have been converted to fewer (strata) units given the desirable location.
More bedrooms than occupants in many houses in these ‘hoods.
Its not uncomfortable its obvious. It makes no sense to add 100,000 people to Broadway while the rest of the city empties.
Why not ? It makes more sense to you to add 100,000 people to Shaugnessy ? or W Van ? It makes sense to me to add people where mass rapid transit exists or is coming, aka Broadway, Burnaby along SkyTrain etc ..
It makes sense for 100,000 people to move onto Broadway if that’s what best meets 100,000 people’s combination of cost, access, and amenity.
It doesn’t makes sense to stop them from moving to other accessible neighborhoods though
The city haven’t published the ‘Local Area’ population counts yet, so this could be wrong, but it looks as if the population of Shaughnessy has dropped quite a bit in the past five years. It looks as if there are now 8,272 residents, about 600 less than in 2011.
If that number is correct, the fall is nothing new. The old City of Vancouver website (still accessible if you know where to look at http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/census/2011/localareaspop2011.pdf )shows that since 1971 the population has fallen in that area in every single census but one.
The number of occupied dwellings seems to have dropped a little, to 2,884, but that’s only 114 fewer than in 2011 (so by no means a massive increase in ‘unoccupied’ homes) and still more than 20 years ago when there were over 800 more residents. http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/census/2011/localareasdwellings2011.pdf.
In Shaughnessy it looks as if the households are getting smaller, presumably as children leave home, couples become singles and families with children have fewer children. If that’s true, it seems possible that explanation applies to other similar areas on the west side like Dunbar and Kerrisdale. It could also apply in Strathcona, although there it’s also likely to be related to redevelopment and restoration of a few rental housing buildings that were occupied in 2011 but vacant (temporarily) in 2016.
Good perspective.
My thoughts to – i.e. the historical reason for a population density drop – empty nesters where the kids have grown up.
In some gentrifying areas too, you might add the repatriation of basement suites to single family use if a more affluent family has purchased the house or if a young family is expanding, has paid off more of its mortgage over time and now needs the space.
Many couples / families think of a basement suite as a temporary solution to help them through the lean years.
I wonder how many of those mortgage helpers only help if the income isn’t reported … Jens makes a good case that the Capital Gains a large obstacle to profitability if they are reported: http://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2016/10/04/secondary-suites-and-taxes/
“The conversion of a portion of a house that otherwise is the taxpayer’s principal residence for the purpose of earning income or the creation of a separate building or structure on land that forms part of the taxpayer’s principal residence for the purpose of earning income are examples of structural changes that would result in a deemed disposition and reacquisition of a portion of the property.”
One of the reasons given for the proposed increase in density of Chinatown was that Chinatown badly needs an influx of people to revitalize it. Well, it looks like the City needs to “save” Shaughnessy too before it becomes an unpopulated wasteland.
Not quite. Chinatown isn’t really Chinese anymore. Those have move to Richmond. Chinatown is essentially E-Van which needs revitalization throughout. With the viaducts down that will come in time. A subway stop would help.
Shaughnessy is fine as is, an enclave for the rich.
The “uncomfortable question” regarding the hollowing out of those areas has nothing to do with density.
I observe with some irony that the map indicates over a 5% increase in density in Stanley Park presumably among the homeless!
No, the map shows the dissemination area which includes Stanley Park and parts of Barclay, Haro, West Georgia, Alberni and Robson Streets. There were 1,171 people there in 2016, 63 more people than were there in 2011. There has been no new development in that area, and the census also shows that there are fewer units not occupied by ‘usual’ residents in 2016.
At least the Shaughnesshites pay proportional taxes – unlike the freeloading “farmers” of Southlands.
It’s the obverse of ‘nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.’ It’s a terrible place to visit – unlike Queen’s Park that has a walkable scale and residents say hello. Odds are you won’t see another soul in the gated walled enclave of Shaughnessy – though you’re likely to be monitored on CCTV and reported to the police if you linger.
The humans that you do come across, besides the postie, are renovation crews and gardeners. There are always renovators and gardeners. Oh the trials and tribulations of living in a 10M mansion and having to put up with the working class.
It’s interesting to check out the names of the board of directors of the SHPOA – one is Victor Dukowski. There’s an article in the National Post called ‘Field of Screams’ about a large property his family owns in Bear Creek, Surrey, next to the trailer park.
Different strokes for different folks. We need variety of housing in Metrovan, from low end to very high end. No one is forced to live there, but some chose to. So please let them.
I lived in Shaughnessy for two years in a rented room in a mansion and felt welcome, and was never referred to as “shite.” The neighbourhood is not walled off, and in fact is a very pleasant park-like walk open to anyone, not unlike New West’s Queens Park heritage core. I think you are rhetorically confusing walled / gated private residences with the fortresses and perimeter walls surrounding entire communities in the US with armed private security manning the gatehouses on the public roads.
What is it with those Americans and their walls?
About those walls, there are thousands of them all over Vancouver in every single neighbourhood, not to mention picket fences and gates. And intercoms at every front door to every apartment building. So what?
I can only come to depressing conclusions from this and other recent data. Housing affordability has never been worse, whether you rent or own. Empty homes have never been more numerous. Truly, we have reached the point that income and wealth inequality are hurting almost everyone. Who wants to live in a ghost neighbourhood?
In my neighbourhood of East Vancouver, there are a large number of houses that could use substantial renovation, or could be torn down to build new. We are facing the inevitability of more density, more crowding, and higher land prices. I recognize the need for renewal, however the expense and crap quality of much of the new construction I see makes me shudder. Two hundred dollars a square foot!!! And the huge expense, and ever growing hassle of legal renovation or new construction. A realtor documented the process building a new home near main street. Eight months and a cool $38,000 in fees and permits to reach demolition stage of his tear down property.
Vancouver is becoming constipated, with lot value homes not moving – no money for renovations or moving up the ladder, and the buy down options looking grim for those on the east side. At the same time condos are routinely going to multiple offers at this time, as the rudderless provincial government housing policy lurches with an injection of liquidity. Good luck to the next generation.
Keith, one of the biggest issues is our wasted land. Land is where the value / cost is. The structure itself is not overly above average to build new. There is a tremendous resource — literally tens of km2 collectively — locked up in all the 4,000 ft2 lots, which are not getting cheaper.
And $38,000 in fees? Demolition itself is $15,000 – $25,000. If developers and builders were required to save existing houses or recycle the materials, you’re looking at more than $50,000 per dwelling, and even higher prices on new housing.
I am not advocating demolition and feel that too many houses are landfilled while still useable. I am saying that the city needs to assume its fair share of responsibility for the affordability crisis and break the glass bubble that created a vacuum over the RS1 zoned areas and allow freehold ownership of more units per lot, and to offer an extra unit of two density to builders who preserve or at least recycle existing houses.
When land is expensive, use less of it.
What is a stock split? Why do stocks split?
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/113.asp
“A stock split is usually done by companies that have seen their share price increase to levels that are either too high or are beyond the price levels of similar companies in their sector. The primary motive is to make shares seem more affordable to small investors even though the underlying value of the company has not changed.”
Density, seen in this light, isn’t about housing more people, it is about finding a way to split existing properties whose values are too high into ones which can be afforded. The density which is built can then follow supply/demand curves, but right now, the gap to the first rung on the property ladder is far too high to reach.
Totally agree. When the housing “stock” is split on a very large amount of land, the potential to build an abundant supply is pretty attractive. Increasing the supply of the Missing Middle in family housing in Vancouver has the potential to slow or even level the rise in prices. Combined with external events like interest rate hikes or other cities enacting similar measures in large lot RS1 and 2 zones (they are very abundant), the tide may even turn to see prices come down in the region. I’d suggest prices will not erase the ~500% gain in some parts since 2000, but even a mild downward slope would be a milestone event here.
Those who focus on empty homes without referring to the root causes need to think about this. Land use plays a huge role in affordability (or the lack thereof) way beyond foreign ownership, speculation and people who take long vacations away from home.
Build enough Missing Middle housing the west side schools will full up again, and new shops will be supported by walk-in locals. A net benefit all around.
Exactly .. its not so much of a concern of mine that the price of X house comes down, but that that house can be split so that the overall price becomes closer to X/2 … the ‘worth’ of X is unchanged.
Otherwise, there are a whole lot of young people who bought late, bought high, who will be SOL and underwater.
I don’t really think we should ‘build more’ per-se, because that would imply more of the same … I think we should ‘build different’ (including missing middle, but also council housing, coop, CLT, etc), and in so doing, create a market somewhat parallel and distinct from the current one. [combined of course with some tax on vacant, and some care on non-vancouver-sourced-money … which I don’t think will be enough to shift X significantly, nor necessarily do we want it to (see: underwater)]
It may be counterintuitive, but Shaughnessy, on a sq/ft basis, is actually not that expensive – less than $500/sq’ – even on the non-garbage busy streets. It’s just that the lots are so big that the total ticket price is high. There are properties in Strathcona and Mount Pleasant that are more expensive per foot.
The highest best use of Shaughnessy is for it to be massively densified. Many of the owners would be happy to profit and maybe buy an island, or move to Monaco. A lot of the resident oldsters would be better off in high end townhouses in the same neighbourhood.
This notion of sticking masses of people along traffic arterials is wrong. Nobody, but nobody, wants to live on a busy street. Shaughnessy could become a hip place to live instead of the boring rich person’s enclave it is now.
Big cities like Vancouver need places everyone, incl. for as you call them “boring rich people”. (btw: I think wealth and being boring have nothing to do with each other as I know plenty of boring not so rich folks and quite a few very interesting rich guys, too)
There is this illusion if we just densified somehow prices would go down per unit. They do not. We just get more units for millionaires. If you take five $6-8M mansions in Shaughnessy and build a medium density 80 unit place the condos would still be $1500+/sq ft .. Who would actually benefit ?? Is it not the right of anyone to stay were they are if they can pay the rent, property taxes or mortgage ? Let them decide if they wish to leave ? Adding 8 -16 story buildings into beautiful older neighborhoods with park like settings seems a stupid idea to me. Where is the benefit ? For whom ?
There is a difference between a boring rich person’s enclave and an enclave for boring rich people.
It would be useful to have someone like Bosa weigh in on this subject – someone that knows what they’re talking about – who really knows the numbers.
Michael Geller is giving a lecture tonight related to this issue. 7:00 SFU downtown.
Lets make sure the City obliterates the scale of Chinatown by jamming in 200′ floorplates for density while the Westside stays protected and empty. What a joke.
There is too much architectural and heritage value in Shaughnessy to go blundering in with the typical density approach. A more logical declining area to target would be the adjacent Quilchena. As the last piece of the West Side to be developed its architectural value is minimal: functional Fifties stucco and replacement dusty rose Hongcouver Specials of the Nineties. No architecural value in either and the area already has a large pocket of densification in Arbutus Village.
Who goes to Shaughnessy to admire its heritage architecture – what you can see beyond the walls and gates? Nobody. Actually, I once saw what looked like tourists outside of Glen Brae, but Shaugnessy has a lot of houses that are not worth keeping.
Anything there worth preserving can be, while providing a desirable location for many. Should Quilchena be developed – of course. Should Shaughnessy be kept as an untouched enclave that only the residents go through – of course not.
Restrictive zoning is choking this city, reducing the tax base, and forcing people into the maw of motordom.
Arnie, there are at least 17 Class A heritage houses still standing that were original Samuel Maclure commissions in First Shaughnessy alone. You can still see them if you know where to look. When you go on and on about the walls that shut out the unwashed masses, perhaps you can also reiterate what the bylaw height restrictions are for perimeter walls and fences. Perhaps you are referring to tall hedges, for which there are no height restrictions and are found in every neighbourhood. Laurels and cedars do not discriminate. Birds love them for habitat, and they are willing to shite on any house, rich or poor.
Shaughnessy houses are of first rate quality craftsmanship and design, which was originally controlled by the CPR lands division. Just because the previous and current owners are dirty, filthy, stinking rich doesn’t mean that the designers and crafts people were. Most of them also had commissions for far smaller detached homes and apartments for people much lower on the class scale. Many older battered and broken down rental houses in Grandview Woodlands and elsewhere still contain original stained and leaded glass windows by the same firms that did larger ones in richer neighbourhoods.
@ Alex
How many years has it been since you strolled through these leafy areas admiring the houses – or has it been decades?
Anyway, odds are, this area will be developed. There’s a property for sale now at 1033 Balfour for $6.38M. With a 15,207′ lot this works out to only $420/sq’ – even if someone pays full whack. It’s licensed for 4 units.
Is the house worth retaining? Yes, it looks like a nice place. Should it hog this much land? It would make sense to move it to one corner and develop the rest – much like the old Avalon Dairy.
There’s an agent, actually a group of three – a triad? – who have taken it upon themselves to make the big S their real estate farm and are advertising development sites for sale from $5M to $30M – 16 of them listed as confidential. Change is afoot – or is that /sq’.
About four times a year (walking), and twice a week (driving).
The old Grande Dame Hycroft, now the University Women’s Club, holds public events many times a year. We attended a lecture on wise old architect Samuel Maclure there last year. There was a great old mansion with a premier address on The Crescent that was on the heritage homes tour last June, now carved up into apartments with an additional new townhouse in back. I worked on an infill project for a ~15,000 ft2 lot on Osler decades ago (two coach houses in the back yard of a stunning original Craftsman).
Infill is happening in Shaughnessy, but not at a hugely noticeable pace. The city rightfully treats new development there with great attention to heritage and detail. One of the most serious limiting factors to additional development is the ancient (and far too small) combined sewer system.
So, you spend roughly four hours per year walking around Shaughnessy? Do you ever see anyone else on foot? Admiring the residences? Even dog walkers are rare because the yards are so big that taking them outside the walls is pointless.
Your observation on the sewer system is useful – not only does s**t roll down hill, but, in this case, it is mixed with good storm water – all the more reason for this area to be improved. Divert Shaughnessy s**t! Now there’s a rallying cry for the commoners.
Very funny, Arnie.
FYI, all storm water needs to be funneled into on-site detention ponds in all new development when the sewers are under threat from overflowing during the most intense storms. All those tony sunken grass tennis courts between the new townhouses in back serve a duo purpose. Several new developments have included underground cisterns to capture and reuse runoff from the roofs in the gardens.
And I can say that I lived there for two years, which really means I spent more time there than any non-resident dog walker, of which there are still quite a few.
Beyer doesn’t understand the difference between a boring rich person’s enclave as written above, and an enclave for boring rich people, but is bleating “boring rich” – running with it like a dog with a wobbly bone.
Maybe the density is dwindling due to absentee owners? There is one on nearly every block in Point Grey.
Funny, that isn’t a problem in most other neighbourhoods further east.