About fifteen years ago at a hearing regarding the future of the Arbutus rail alignment (now a greenway) a resident made this very astounding statement to the Mayor and Council: “We are the people who live in your neighbourhood. We are dentists, doctors, lawyers, professionals, CEOs of companies. We are the crème de la crème in Vancouver. We live in a very expensive neighbourhood and we’re well educated and well informed. And that’s what we intend to be.”
Somehow that became a litmus test not so much of entitlement, but the need for a universal understanding across the City that the development of the Arbutus right-of-way was a public good for everyone, including the local residents. Jen St. Denis in Metro News reports on another unfortunate analogy which appeared in the Shaughnessy Property Owners’ Association newsletter, suggesting that “gentle density” in laneway houses and secondary suites accessible to citizens of all incomes was a bit improper for the large lots and mansions in the Shaughnessy area .
Part of the Shaughnessy newsletter states: “The notion underlying this right is that anyone who wants to live in Vancouver should be able to, regardless of their ability to compete in the housing market.This is a major departure from past decades where people who could not afford a home in Vancouver left for the more affordable suburbs. Young working class people were content with the idea that you moved in order to find ‘affordable’ housing.”
“The Mayor has announced further intentions to densify single family neighbourhoods to allow greater numbers people to be shoe-horned into them, so that they can enjoy their ‘right’ to an ‘affordable’ home within the city’s environs. The fact is, however, that the more people who exercise this ‘right’, the more unaffordable homes will become..The result puts one in mind of the ‘dense pack’ strategy of early 18th century slavers, wherein they struck upon the idea of stacking their human cargo like cordwood in the hopes of increasing profits. The result was an increase in mortality that did exactly the opposite of what was intended.”
Again another unfortunate analogy that does not represent what gentle density could look like in the Shaughnessy area, but does show the need for better planning outreach, process and education on how walkable, healthy, and liveable higher density in Shaughnessy could be.
Cities need a variety of housing forms, incl those for the very affluent. Just ensure the property taxes are set high enough, specially for folks that pay no income taxes in BC.
As such the NDP policy of a suggested 2% of additional propertytaxes annually for non-income tax paying corporations, blind trust, beneficial owners or non-residents make total sense to me. https://www.biv.com/article/2017/3/ndp-would-expand-bcs-foreign-buyer-tax/ This money then could be used for homelessness and affordable housing … elsewhere.
So, they’re saying that large lots can’t have small buildings on them?
Yes, I am saying some areas should NOT have small houses as it doesn’t fit the area.
Some areas should have mixed housing, including commercial or industrial, or dense single housing, but some do not !
We need variety in all forms in a large metroplex like Greater Vancouver.
Tent city in Devonshire Park would look good right about now.
Wow, entitlement much? These creme-sters should move to the states if they want this kind of segregation, and maybe then they’ll realize what their entitlement will lead to – Trump style politics and taking health care away from the poor.
Last time I checked you can still drive, bike or walk through this area and admire the vast homes. It is not segregated, like many US cities. In some areas we should not allow small homes (or industrial, or commercial or highrise or mid-rises) … in some others we do.
A vast home is not a need. It is a preference. Given that people need homes and are vital to a functioning city, those considerations and the appropriate zoning to encourage more efficient use of land are both economically wise and socially egalitarian. These are both good qualities for a city to exhibit.
A city has to cater to ALL. Rich and poor. Old or young. Gay or straight. Married or single. Families with kids or without.
Preferences is what motives folks. Not just needs. See also Maslov’s hierarchy of needs !
There is nothing preventing a wealthy person from purchasing a lot and putting a big house on it, regardless of the residential zoning in the neighbourhood. The rich are also a decided minority in terms of total population. Zoning should reflect the purchasing ability of the majority of residents. In that way we cater to all, exactly as you wish to happen. Age, sexual preference, marital status, or dependent children are irrelevant. Not sure what you are attempting by bringing it into a discussion of sensible land use. Again, if you prefer to build a big house, then do so. Demanding your neighbours exhibit the same preference is exclusionary. Simple really.
Also, also – it’s Maslow, not Maslov. Double checking our comments for accuracy might arguably belong higher on the hierarchy of posting conduct.
deleted as per editorial policy
Zoning needs to reflect a common theme. The only city I know that allows anything, anywhere, is Houston, TX. Are you advocating highrises, big houses, small houses, mid-rises, townhouses, mobile homes, RVs etc all to be allowed in Shaugnessy ? Zoning has fairly narrow limits, to protect property owners, investors, city planners or politicians from abuse and to create coherent city layout & feel.
The wealthy need a place to live, as do poorer folks, and not necessarily in the same area. If a rich guy wants to live in E Hastings he/she is free to do so, but many chose not to. Money comes with privileges, such as a choice of abode.
“Are you advocating highrises, big houses, small houses, mid-rises, townhouses, mobile homes, RVs etc all to be allowed in Shaugnessy ?”
I’ve already spoken to this. It seems clear enough to be understood by most.
“Zoning should reflect the purchasing ability of the majority of residents. In that way we cater to all, exactly as you wish to happen. ”
I’m not going to respond to silly exaggerations. Are there any permanent RV parks in Vancouver proper? Or a swelling demand for same? No. There are plenty of families who could benefit from multi-family options in a location such as Shaughnessy. As an enclave for the wealthy it is bad for the city. Money does not come with privileges. It is merely an instrument of trade and if you want more land and privacy, then by all means go and buy it. It does not equal the right to direct city policy against the working majority.
You infringe on people’s rights if you start building multi family ( or commercial or RV parks) willy nilly in established neighbourhoods, especially those with large estate lots. There are plenty of other better suited places.
It makes sense at the edge of Shaughnessy, as we see today long Granville, but not two to 5 blocks further west.
There is no better place for multi family than close to the downtown core and countless other important destinations. If you want to live on an estate move to the country. Cities change and adapt to serve their citizens. Nobody is talking about RV parks or willy nilly anything for gosh sakes! What could possibly occur in the space of two blocks that makes increased density impossible?
Multi family in Shaughnessy, if approved, will be very VERY high end condos, as we see in Wall Center along noisy Granville, for example. $1500/sq ft and up from there for view suites or quieter ones. It won’t help affordability one bit.
There are ways to build housing that needn’t fall victim to the market. All it takes is political will. Building housing, regardless of the system used to disburse still employs workers, pays for materials, creates options. The only missing piece of the puzzle in not-for-profit models is the accumulation of money at the top. Why would someone find that objectionable?
http://www.chfcanada.coop/eng/pages2007/about_3a.asp?Prov=BC&Region=BC12
Only in a subsidized environment would this ” more affordable housing” work. If you force 20% or more affordable housing onto developers they will either not build at all, or the other 80% will get even more expensive.
deleted as per editorial policy
I thought we didn’t have segregation either… Then a year or so ago, a black friend told me that Shaughnessy has long had a reputation. I’m afraid I don’t remember the details; basically he said that it’s a place to avoid if you’re black – especially alone, after dark, or around certain houses.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.
To be fair, it is important to speak on behalf of the slaves… sorry, people, so that they… I’m terribly sorry, *because* they cannot be heard speaking for themselves.
So, this implies that they consider all the rest of us, who don’t live in single-family homes, to be nothing more than slaves, kept around for, well… someone has to maintain the city. Necessary nuisances. We’re “the help”.
I don’t know whether to be appalled or heartened that there are still local residents in Shaughnessy who actually care. I thought most of it had been sold off to overseas buyers.