The rush to Richmond

Planners are preparing for a tripling of the population over the next 25 years as Vancouver's housing refugees flock to the suburb in search of affordability and a better quality of life, writes ALEXIS ROOHANI

ALEXIS ROOHANI Special to The Globe and Mail POSTED ON 06/10/06

Richmond is coming of age, and its claim to fame is beginning to reach well beyond its reputation for prolific shopping centres and tasty Chinese cuisine.

"Richmond has a higher profile. You think about moving here now," says Tracy Lakeman, a veteran of the Strathcona area who moved to Richmond with her partner in 2005, buying a home in Richmond's Seafair neighbourhood. "It's not so much a suburb of Vancouver any more; it's becoming a city in its own right."

Moreover, says Ms. Lakeman, now Executive Director of Tourism Richmond, all the development hasn't erased the area's other pleasures. "When I'm out walking, I'm watching bald eagles, hawks, coyotes, blue herons, ducks..."

Home builders have taken note.

Hani Lammam, Vice President of Development and Acquisitions for Cressey Development Corp., has watched affordability turn Richmond into one of the Lower Mainland's biggest real estate hot spots.

"We see a higher demand for real estate in Richmond than we do in Vancouver," says Mr. Lammam. "The values are better in Richmond because land is cheaper, and yet the quality of the product is comparable."
As one of Richmond's foremost developers, Cressey is responsible for kick-starting McLennan North, a major developmental collaboration with the City of Richmond that has evolved into one of the city's most coveted neighbourhoods.

"Because of Richmond's demographics and geographic advantages, we predicted that it would be a success," says Mr. Lammam of the company's decision to spearhead the master planning for McLennan North 12 years ago. "It had everything going for it."

Whether you chalk it up to clairvoyance or just prescience borne of proper due diligence, Cressey could hardly ask for a better return on its wager.
The July release of Mandalay and Brandywine Lane, Cressey's crowning residential projects in McLennan North, saw more than 250 realtors in attendance, hinting at the high level of demand in Richmond's real estate market.

"It's been a tremendous success," Mr. Lammam says, "way beyond our expectations."

Sassan Pourfar, who bought into Brandywine Lane in July, chose Richmond specifically for what it offers to homeowners who don't want to sacrifice quality and lifestyle for the sake of affordability.

"Compared to other places around Vancouver, the price of living [in Richmond] is much less," says Mr. Pourfar, who researched the Lower Mainland area extensively before moving from Iran and settling in Richmond with his wife in 2001. Since then, Mr. Pourfar has purchased two properties in the city, experiences he believes provided him with a better return on his investment.

"If I wanted to buy something in Vancouver for the same cost [$600,000], I'd have to buy a 40 or 50 year-old house, and even then I'd have to redevelop it," says Mr. Pourfar. "Based on what I expect in terms of quality and design, there's no comparison for what I found with Cressey and for the price I got in Richmond."

Strong market values may be a draw factor, but Richmond's ability to satisfy diverse lifestyle needs is ultimately what keeps people in the city. The city has attempted to provide that by implementing a strict plan for densification.

"We are taking densification very seriously," says Terry Crowe, Manager of Policy Planning for the City of Richmond. "We only have a limited amount of land in Richmond that we can effectively use for urban growth. If we want to continue to have an agricultural land reserve and a sustainable region, we have to densify the areas that are designated urban now as efficiently as we can."

Urban density has not characteristically been one of Richmond's calling cards, a fact best illustrated by the uninspiring strip malls that dominate many of the city's main drags.

But with plans in place for supporting 120,000 people in the city centre by 2031 -- an increase of 80,000 over the area's current population -- it's safe to say that the times are a'changing, a point that will only be reinforced by the introduction of rapid transit over the next few years.

Focusing densification primarily on arterial roads and shopping districts (in order to protect the city's fiercely guarded single-family neighbourhoods), the city's planning department is also committed to building five high-density urban villages around each of Richmond's scheduled rapid transit stations.

These villages will be designed as individual live/work/play communities, and will strive in their planning to maximize transit ridership and effectively eliminate the need to own a vehicle.

While a vibrant and diverse downtown core satisfies the requirements of a complete community, What makes Richmond appealing to many residents are the city's 1,500 acres of open park space and comprehensive network of recreational facilities -- assets that city planners are making every effort to balance with growth.

"We have to grow to make the community livable at the end of the day, and what makes it livable are parks and other amenities," says Mr. Crowe.
A livable city also means job opportunities, which proves to be yet another area of surprising wealth for Richmond. According to Craig Jones, Executive Director for the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, current figures estimate a total of 1.5 jobs per resident, a ratio that even Vancouver can't boast.

"We've got a number of industries that have decided to locate here because of the talent pool that's available and the city's proximity to the airport, the U.S. border, and the local port authorities," Mr. Jones says.
Several industry hubs have been cultivated by the city over the past few decades, including high-tech, agriculture, biotech, manufacturing, transportation, and the overflow from Vancouver's diminished warehousing sector.

"Companies like to locate here because it's affordable for their staff to live and work in their community," explains Mr. Jones of the 12,000 companies that call Richmond home. "In Vancouver, that's changed dramatically."






Richmond's population is currently 170,000. Multiply that by three and that's 510,000.

and they will all sink into the sea one day :(

and they will all sink into the sea one day :(

lol, exactly:)

hmmm... triple eh? maybe zero tomorrow. you never know when the big one will hit...

Richmond is ignoring the GVRD, the max population they want there is like 175 000 isnt it? Its going to pass that easily. I like Richmond, its a unique feel, and its really busy during the day.

Richmond is ignoring the GVRD, the max population they want there is like 175 000 isnt it? Its going to pass that easily. I like Richmond, its a unique feel, and its really busy during the day.

condo development has barely started in Richmond City Centre.....the population will definetely climb.

Richmond is ignoring the GVRD, the max population they want there is like 175 000 isnt it? Its going to pass that easily. I like Richmond, its a unique feel, and its really busy during the day.It has already passed it. I looked it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond%2C_British_Columbia). Apparently it was 166,219 in 2002, and 181,942 in 2005 . Anyway, what this means is they'll need about 15 thousand people per year to triple their population in 25 years. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. In the time between 2002 and 2005, which is three years, Richmond's population grew by about 16 thousand. So they'll have to triple their current growth. Is that right or is that right? Of course someone will reply with totally different numbers of their own. :)

15k a year is pretty high for one suburb to achieve, and for 25 years?

The rush to Richmond


But with plans in place for supporting 120,000 people in the city centre by 2031 -- an increase of 80,000 over the area's current population -- it's safe to say that the times are a'changing, a point that will only be reinforced by the introduction of rapid transit over the next few years.

Richmond's population is currently 170,000. Multiply that by three and that's 510,000.

dudes, read it more carefully.... it's a tripling of richmond's DOWNTOWN area.... not of the entire population.

richmond's current population ~180,000
richmond's downtown ~40,000
downtown tripled ~120,000
which would then make richmond's population ~ 260,000

Airport looks at bridge toll, restrictions
Arthur Laing changes would force commuters onto Oak and Knight streets

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/idl/vasn/20061010/84439-33473.jpg

William Boei, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Vancouver International Airport is considering imposing tolls on the Arthur Laing Bridge and dedicating one or two lanes exclusively to airport traffic.

That would send thousands of motorists who travel between Richmond and Vancouver east to the already congested Oak Street and Knight Street bridges.

The Arthur Laing Bridge, owned by the airport and originally built to serve the airport exclusively, is operating at full capacity -- it is congested in both directions during both rush hours -- and two-thirds of the traffic is commuters driving between Richmond and Vancouver.

The airport, which last month unveiled a long-term growth plan that will further increase traffic, doesn't have much choice, said its transportation and planning manager, John Lenahan.

A decision won't be made for several years, Lenahan said, "but my personal guess would be that within 10 years we're going to have to have something implemented."

That leaves several years for planning, during which traffic on the bridge is likely to become even more congested.

Richmond is considering allowing its population to increase by half to about 300,000, which would generate more traffic.

The airport can't add lanes to the Arthur Laing Bridge or twin it, Lenahan said, because Vancouver has a long-standing policy of not allowing new lanes or bridges to funnel more traffic into the city.

The Canada Line rapid transit line will take a little pressure off, but not nearly enough.

"We're in a bit of a tight spot between the City of Richmond and the City of Vancouver," Lenahan said. "In the meantime, people have to get to the airport."

Unless Vancouver changes its mind about accommodating more traffic, "the only other option would be to take some of the existing capacity and redirect it from commuters to the airport."

That has Richmond council up in arms.

"It will mean further bottlenecks, further traffic jams, and access for emergency vehicles could be problematic," said Richmond Coun. Linda Barnes, who heads the council's public works and transportation committee.

"The committee looked at it and said we didn't want anything to do with it," Barnes said.

She said the issue will likely come before the full Richmond council this week.

The Arthur Laing spans the Fraser River's north arm from the bottom end of Granville Street in Vancouver to Sea Island, where it connects to the No. 2 Road Bridge into Richmond.

Ninety-thousand vehicles a day cross the bridge. Enough of a reverse commute has developed that "it's getting to capacity in both directions morning and afternoon," Lenahan said.

The 30-year-old bridge was originally built as an airport-only bridge. Transport Canada couldn't get either Richmond or the provincial government to help pay for it, and so it wasn't connected to the regional road system.

Motorists got creative. They ignored stop signs and no-right-turn signs, Lenahan said, "and people were getting tickets for taking short cuts to try and go from Richmond to Vancouver, for quite a number of years."

"It was really disruptive," Barnes said, "not only for Richmond, but for anybody going to and from the airport; taxis, buses, a whole variety of traffic."

It took 16 years for a deal to be made. In 1992, the Arthur Laing was finally connected to the new No. 2 Road Bridge from Sea Island to Richmond.

Since then it has filled up, and the airport is still growing. The airport authority now wants passengers and staff and trucks carrying freight to have priority on the bridge.

Airport officials are hoping the Canada Line will be carrying up to 12 per cent of airport passengers and employees within a couple of years of its 2009 opening, eventually ramping up to 18 to 20 per cent.

Most airport rapid transit systems in North American carry six to 10 per cent of airport traffic. The most successful, Washington, D.C.'s Reagan Airport, gets about 14 per cent.

Twenty per cent "would make us the most successful airport in North America for transit use," Lenahan said. "That still means 80 per cent are coming some other way -- buses, cars, rental cars, taxis. And with the growth we have projected here, the Canada Line can't solve all our problems."

Richmond council may have another three or four years to find another solution, Barnes said, adding that Richmond has to push the airport for the details behind its plans.

"What's behind this request? What is the need? And are there other ways of getting that need met without dedicating these lanes?"

TransLink, the regional transportation authority, has no sway over the Arthur Laing Bridge, said spokesman Ken Hardie.

"It's owned by the airport," Hardie said. "It's not part of the major roads network. Therefore it's not subject to any approval process from TransLink."

But Lenahan said, if there's another solution, it has to be found at the regional level.

"We all have to start looking at this as a regional problem, not just Richmond's problem or our problem or Vancouver's," he said.

"We need a regional approach to transportation. We've started to see some of that, but it's still a little parochial sometimes."

dudes, read it more carefully.... it's a tripling of richmond's DOWNTOWN area.... not of the entire population.

richmond's current population ~180,000
richmond's downtown ~40,000
downtown tripled ~120,000
which would then make richmond's population ~ 260,000That makes more sense.

That makes more sense.

thank god....Richmond would be out of its mind if it wanted more than 500,000 people. the article i posted about the Arthur Laing tolls says Richmond is thinking about allowing the population to increase from 180,000 to 300,000.

thank god....Richmond would be out of its mind if it wanted more than 500,000 people. the article i posted about the Arthur Laing tolls says Richmond is thinking about allowing the population to increase from 180,000 to 300,000.

Yea, even that 300,000 figure kinda raised my eyebrow.... I've never seen a figure that high in any of the city's planning. The "tripling of downtown" figure was the city's highest projection - the other projections were not as bold... so back to the 300,000 figure.... I'm not sure where Richmond would plan to house everyone....? :dunno:

... although i'd like to see them try

Yea, even that 300,000 figure kinda raised my eyebrow.... I've never seen a figure that high in any of the city's planning. The "tripling of downtown" figure was the city's highest projection - the other projections were not as bold... so back to the 300,000 figure.... I'm not sure where Richmond would plan to house everyone....? :dunno:

... although i'd like to see them try

interesting to point out.....New Orleans and Venice were not below sea-level before they were urbanized. The building of more and more structures and buildings over the years caused much of these cities to actually sink.....for example, in New Orleans ground water had to be removed for construction and in some parts that caused the ground to drop by 3 feet!

Richmond doesn't allow for any basements or underground parking anywhere, and also has strict guidelines for foundations and building heights. Although so many structures will still probably cause the land to sink somewhat.

hmmm... triple eh? maybe zero tomorrow. you never know when the big one will hit...

I guess its goodbye then?:D

300k is huge for Richmond. Its already congested and crowded, especially in the downtown area right now. The current Richmond admin just keeps approving more and more projects; imo they should cool down...and let the Richmond population stablize.

As for the Arthur Laing issue, as much as i hate paying a toll to get to Vancouver, they do have a point. Airport users should get priority on that bridge, but where does that leave Richmondites? Rush hour traffic is a bitch in both Russ Baker leading up to Arthur Laing and the Oak street bridge. Just the other day i was stuck on Russ Baker for 1 hour!:rant: (The dinsmore closure just made things worse). I hope they reconsider the policy on limiting Vancouver-Richmond connections...maybe a tunnel instead of a bridge?

Richmond doesn't allow for any basements or underground parking anywhere, and also has strict guidelines for foundations and building heights. Although so many structures will still probably cause the land to sink somewhat.

how is the Olympic oval's parking being built? is it slightly below grade or above grade?

its above grade in a parkade isn't it?

Someone was chatting to me awhile ago regarding a possible twinning of the George Massey Tunnel. Anyone heard anything?

Richmond seems to be in the same boat as Coquitlam, in that there is a lot of population growth forcasted, but the transportation infrustructure can't support it in it's current state. A common problem everywhere, but especially in those areas it seems.

how is the Olympic oval's parking being built? is it slightly below grade or above grade?

Actually I've heard that it's going to be an underground parking lot. Don't really know they're going to work it out but it'll probably be expensive to seal the whole thing. In Richmond, you hit water if you dig down more than a couple metres, especially during the wet season, so any underground parking will have to be watertight. You also have to deal with settling, which is a bigger problem in Richmond because of the general instability of the soil.

Highrises built in Richmond have foundations that require myriads of pilings drilled at least 40-50 ft. into the soft soil underneath. Stone filled pilings and reinforced concrete pilings and weights at the bases are required to stabilize the structures. Even low rises of about 10 storeys need hundreds of pilings.

I don't see why people would be scared of expanding Richmond. Has anyone been out past No.6 road? Nothing but open fields. If they were to develop that land, the population could easily double. Also, they could put another crossing on Boundary road. It might give people another option in getting to and from Richmond.

^^ Isn't that open space all farm land?

Yes most of it is. I realize that would require them taking the land off the Agricultural Land Preserve, and that is not an easy thing to do. I was just pointing out how you could solve many of the conjestion problems and easily triple the population.:)

Yes most of it is. I realize that would require them taking the land off the Agricultural Land Preserve, and that is not an easy thing to do. I was just pointing out how you could solve many of the conjestion problems and easily triple the population.:)

building sprawl and more roads will not solve congestion problems. ever wonder why the gvrd is trying to focus growth in vancouver, burnany, the norteast sector, and surrey, cause richmond isnt going to be around forever. it will flood. its not a matter of if, its when

building sprawl and more roads will not solve congestion problems. ever wonder why the gvrd is trying to focus growth in vancouver, burnany, the norteast sector, and surrey, cause richmond isnt going to be around forever. it will flood. its not a matter of if, its when

The only thing I wonder about the GVRD is why are they still around. That group rivals Vancouver's city council for overall ineptness. Focussing growth in Vancouver and Burnaby is a great idea. Just one problem: there is very little room left in either municipality to do so. Sending cars to Surrey, Maple Ridge, PoCo etc. is at LEAST a 30 minute endevour while Richmond with acres of undeveloped farmland sits about a 10 minute drive from downtown. Also with the investment of over a billion dollars in transit infrastructure, Richmond needs to be home to more people so that the line can be used by more people in order to justify such a large cost.

Richmonds population could triple without sprawling into the agricultural land. You just need to look at an aerial photograph and see the mass of low density housing. Not sure the idea of paving over agricultural land would go over very well, especially when all you do is build yet more single family houses.

Same deal with the City of Vancouver - tons of low density could be upgraded to at least medium density. It's a slow process, but I think that's the way it should go, rather than look towards our food source.

It's exactly the investment in 2billion of transit infrastructure that precludes Richmond from sprawling further East; growth is to be near the new transit line, and reasonable distance to it. It doesn't seem likely new development East of Shell Rd, or the highway, would feed transit use. If anything, it might compete for road space with the industrial/farm uses in the East. In the short term, it might appear that vast new tracts of housing on ALR land will lower housing costs, but the cost of road infrastructure is high, and it would also raise the cost of food, (not mentioning ecological consequences of covering floodplain with impermeable surfaces).

It's exactly the investment in 2billion of transit infrastructure that precludes Richmond from sprawling further East; growth is to be near the new transit line, and reasonable distance to it. It doesn't seem likely new development East of Shell Rd, or the highway, would feed transit use. If anything, it might compete for road space with the industrial/farm uses in the East. In the short term, it might appear that vast new tracts of housing on ALR land will lower housing costs, but the cost of road infrastructure is high, and it would also raise the cost of food, (not mentioning ecological consequences of covering floodplain with impermeable surfaces).

Why can't it be both? High density development directly near the Skytrain line, and more single family detached homes further east. I think its highly unjust that young families desiring a house are almost always forced out into the far reaches of the municipality, when it could be done much closer to the nerve-center of the region. People starting off should not be forced to choose between spending $600,000 just for a home they will probably have to renovate for even more bucks (thereby plunging them into even deeper debt), or get a home for almost half that sum, but now be faced with longer and more costly commute to your new home somewhere 45 minutes from where you work, all for the sake of a few cranberry fields?

building sprawl and more roads will not solve congestion problems. ever wonder why the gvrd is trying to focus growth in vancouver, burnany, the norteast sector, and surrey, cause richmond isnt going to be around forever. it will flood. its not a matter of if, its when

you know, it's getting pretty tiring hearing doom & gloom arguments that richmond's gonna flood, it's gonna sink into the ocean and be swept away forever. trust me, if & when the big one hits, we'll all be fucked. i'm sure you won't be sitting in your house in burnaby watching the news, laughing at richmond getting destroyed. your house will be a mess as well if it's standing at all. when the big one hits, the entire city will be destroyed. downtown. vancouver. burnaby. surrey. you name it. richmond will only be one of the trouble spots.

if your argument is that richmond only has a finite lifespan, then you should probably argue that it's a bad idea to develop the entire south coast of BC as well. because again, when the big one hits, it's the end of vancouver as we know it.

as for global warming & rising oceans - it happens slowly. maybe millimeters per year. centimeters if something drastic occurs. bottom line is that richmond isn't gonna sit on its ass watching the water trickle over the dykes. by the time the ocean has risen a few meters (in hundreds of years perhaps?), trust me - we'll have prepared for it.

your house will be a mess as well if it's standing at all. when the big one hits, the entire city will be destroyed. downtown. vancouver. burnaby. surrey. you name it. richmond will only be one of the trouble spots. Houses here are made of wood framing. There might be a bit of a mess inside, but they're not going to go down unless it's been poorly constructed. Modern buildings are all designed for possible seismic events. They should be fine. The reason people think Richmond is most at risk is simply the type of earth it sits on.

Houses here are made of wood framing. There might be a bit of a mess inside, but they're not going to go down unless it's been poorly constructed. Modern buildings are all designed for possible seismic events. They should be fine. The reason people think Richmond is most at risk is simply the type of earth it sits on.

most downtown buildings would do fine as well, structually, though obviously there will be a rain of glass crashing down when the big one occurs.

i would be quite concern with the state of our elementary and secondary schools.

most downtown buildings would do fine as well, structually, though obviously there will be a rain of glass crashing down when the big one occurs.

i would be quite concern with the state of our elementary and secondary schools.You think there would be a glass shower? I'm pretty sure it's a little more sturdy than that. Has this ever happened before, like in Japan for instance? If anything, I think the glass in the older buildings will go. The windows in modern buildings will just move with the building as it sways. I'm no expert, that's just my guess.

Schools are being retrofitted, upgraded, or even replaced. I think there is a list, ranking the most "at risk". So people know about it and things are being done, but slowly.

People starting off should not be forced to choose between spending $600,000 just for a home they will probably have to renovate for even more bucks (thereby plunging them into even deeper debt), or get a home for almost half that sum, but now be faced with longer and more costly commute to your new home somewhere 45 minutes from where you work, all for the sake of a few cranberry fields?If Richmond is so close to their workplace, then it wouldn't be affordable; suburban houses are affordable exactly because they are far away, what you just said. Even if it does make some affordable housing for a very small number of people, what about the next batch? And when the Fraser Valley is full to the gills (or hills), and pollution hemmed in, then what? At some point, housing needs to densify. What better time than now, while we still have our cranberry fields (and the birds and insects that live among them, and the groundwater absorbption they provide)—not to mention their profundity keeps cranberry prices lower; (developing them would raise the price of cranberry juice, and I don't think someone should have to move east to drink low-priced cranberry juice) If you think we have too many cranberries, they could always be converted to wheat; I hear local wheat is hard to come by—in any case, not everyone wants to live on mcdonalds and kraft dinner.

If Richmond is so close to their workplace, then it wouldn't be affordable; suburban houses are affordable exactly because they are far away, what you just said. Even if it does make some affordable housing for a very small number of people, what about the next batch? And when the Fraser Valley is full to the gills (or hills), and pollution hemmed in, then what? At some point, housing needs to densify. What better time than now, while we still have our cranberry fields (and the birds and insects that live among them, and the groundwater absorbption they provide)—not to mention their profundity keeps cranberry prices lower; (developing them would raise the price of cranberry juice, and I don't think someone should have to move east to drink low-priced cranberry juice) If you think we have too many cranberries, they could always be converted to wheat; I hear local wheat is hard to come by—in any case, not everyone wants to live on mcdonalds and kraft dinner.

But thats just it. Richmond IS more affordable when compared to other closer municipalities. I agree housing needs to densify, so why not start densifying it closer to Vancouver? By your comments I'll asume you like "mother earth" so where's the logic of letting people drive out so far or better yet sit in traffic, spewing carbons into the air when closer alternatives exist? If it means ponying up a few more pennies for Cranberry juice, I'd be willing to do it if it meant creating better housing alternatives.

^^ So you think we should densify by constructing new houses on land that is currently being used for agricultural purposes? And you think by doing that, it gives people cheaper alternatives. I think you are basically giving up something good to get something else. Which one do you think would be more beneficial over the long run?

I think people need to start thinking about what living in a city means. It means you don't have a god given right to live in a house... :)

What are you talking about?? Richmond is on the forefront of high density housing. Have you seen downtown Richmond lately? High rises (high by richmond standards) are going up all over the place. Theres also lots of land left for development that isn't classified as agricultural land.

Not to mention that a lot of that "farming" land isn't used for farming purposes anyways. An overgrown patch of grass could better serve the population as the site of housing for people.

^^ So you think we should densify by constructing new houses on land that is currently being used for agricultural purposes? And you think by doing that, it gives people cheaper alternatives. I think you are basically giving up something good to get something else. Which one do you think would be more beneficial over the long run?

I think people need to start thinking about what living in a city means. It means you don't have a god given right to live in a house... :)

Good point about living in a house not being a God given right, but for families, houses have, and always will be the first choice. So instead of forcing them into far off suburbs, they instead could find homes closer to where they work. As for cost, the simple theory of supply and demand applies. Even the almighty GVRD recognized that the pricing of homes has gotten out of hand and begrudgingly acknowledged that it was time to rethink their land use policies.

why should people be able to live in a single family home just because the want to. its not a necessity of life to have a backyard.

Good point about living in a house not being a God given right, but for families, houses have, and always will be the first choice. So instead of forcing them into far off suburbs, they instead could find homes closer to where they work. As for cost, the simple theory of supply and demand applies. Even the almighty GVRD recognized that the pricing of homes has gotten out of hand and begrudgingly acknowledged that it was time to rethink their land use policies.


Living in a house in a city is a just a luxury that most of the world got past a long time ago. We just havn't quite hit it yet, but it is getting closer by the year. Yes the price of housing is high but people are coming into this city in huge numbers, and building some low density subdivisions isn't going to fix that.

The point most of us are making is that part of evolving into a real world class city IS density. Look at New York, Toyko, and London, and we're even given the opportunity to plan much further ahead so we can do density right and still have some green space to make this city the great place it is.

And yes traditionally young families want a house but c'mon look around man. How many kids are you really going to have? Few people will exceed 2 nowadays, do you really need a four bedroom house with a giant backyard? Take your kids to the park. You'll get out and get some exercise :)

It's really not as bad as you think, you're just used to having too much. I lived in a one bedroom apartment for 4 months in northern Poland when I was 19 with a roomate and a family of four. Six people in there, and we still managed ok.

Or if you really want a house, move into the interior. Plenty of houses there.

True. I grew up in only multifamily housing, only living in a house with a backyard
for about a year. Children don't need backyards to play in they need parks, community centers, playgrounds and schools.

I think the main problem is the pyschology of the density. I admit I grew up in a single family home in Burnaby til I was 13, then about another 10 years in Kamloops, so I spent a large portion of my life in a large living space.

I live in an appartment now, but when I head up to Kamloops and see my parents I remember what it is like to have so much space. It's not that hard to see why people like it, especially when a person is raised that way. It takes time for people to adjust to a different way of living.

Living in a house in a city is a just a luxury that most of the world got past a long time ago. We just havn't quite hit it yet, but it is getting closer by the year. Yes the price of housing is high but people are coming into this city in huge numbers, and building some low density subdivisions isn't going to fix that.

The point most of us are making is that part of evolving into a real world class city IS density. Look at New York, Toyko, and London, and we're even given the opportunity to plan much further ahead so we can do density right and still have some green space to make this city the great place it is.

And yes traditionally young families want a house but c'mon look around man. How many kids are you really going to have? Few people will exceed 2 nowadays, do you really need a four bedroom house with a giant backyard? Take your kids to the park. You'll get out and get some exercise :)

It's really not as bad as you think, you're just used to having too much. I lived in a one bedroom apartment for 4 months in northern Poland when I was 19 with a roomate and a family of four. Six people in there, and we still managed ok.

Or if you really want a house, move into the interior. Plenty of houses there.

First off those cities you mentioned are literally ten times the size of Vancouver, and they don't have the land available for the type of housing we enjoy here. Also, the green space that would be lost is private land that is NOT being used for farming, and is not parkland, so I doubt it would be missed by many.

You're right about most people not having more than 2 children nowadays. This is especially true here in the lower mainland, and some of the reason for that is simply that people can't afford to have more. This wasn't always the case here and even today is far less of a concern in other areas of the country.

Wow, 6 people in a 1 bedroom apartment. That is very impressive. I too was in Europe a few years back and shared a 2 bedroom apartment with 3 other people for a week. After about 2 nights, I was ready to slit all of their throats as they slept. :lol: No thanks:lol::lol:

Richmond's population is currently 170,000. Multiply that by three and that's 510,000.

I dont see how Richmond's population will triple to 510,000 by 2030 despite what this article says. Metro Vancouver stats project Richmond to have a population of 250,000 by 2030 - as part of a greater regional population of 3.1 million.

510,000 is completely ubsurd and unattainable without increased building heights or the opening up of ALR land to development.

^^ read my post #9 on page 1

True. I grew up in only multifamily housing, only living in a house with a backyard
for about a year. Children don't need backyards to play in they need parks, community centers, playgrounds and schools.

Nice one.

"People will not willingly give up their yards to live in urban places unless they receive something in compensation, namely street life."

~Andres Duany

I grew up in detached single family homes, townhouses, and apartments. I preferred the townhouse because there was more stuff to do near by than when I lived in a detached single family home or apartment. You get used to the space you have.

I think it is psychologically easier to yearn for more interior space in one's home than it is to desire an engaging neighbourhood with interesting streets and things to do. This is especially the case if one has never lived in such a place.

People effortlessly take up whatever living space is available, we're like a gas that way.

What are you talking about?? Richmond is on the forefront of high density housing. Have you seen downtown Richmond lately? High rises (high by richmond standards) are going up all over the place. Theres also lots of land left for development that isn't classified as agricultural land.That's great. I have seen downtown Richmond lately. It's denser, but it's not dense by my standards yet. It's getting there. Saying Richmond is dense is like saying the city of Vancouver is dense because of all the buildings in the downtown core. If you look at aerial photos or Google Earth, you may notice about half of Richmond is developed for housing. I'd say 80 to 90 percent of that land is low density housing (single detached homes). The remaining portion, which includes downtown Richmond, does have a scattering of respectably sized buildings crowding around number 3 road.

If there's land that isn't classified as agricultural, what would it be classified as? If it has already been set aside to be developed, then I have no problem with that.

First off those cities you mentioned are literally ten times the size of Vancouver, and they don't have the land available for the type of housing we enjoy here. Also, the green space that would be lost is private land that is NOT being used for farming, and is not parkland, so I doubt it would be missed by many.

You're right about most people not having more than 2 children nowadays. This is especially true here in the lower mainland, and some of the reason for that is simply that people can't afford to have more. This wasn't always the case here and even today is far less of a concern in other areas of the country.

Wow, 6 people in a 1 bedroom apartment. That is very impressive. I too was in Europe a few years back and shared a 2 bedroom apartment with 3 other people for a week. After about 2 nights, I was ready to slit all of their throats as they slept. :lol: No thanks:lol::lol:

my friend's friend moved to New York and was living with 5 other people in a 1 bedroom apartment in brooklyn! he said its way too expensive to live there but wouldn't change it

my friend's friend moved to New York and was living with 5 other people in a 1 bedroom apartment in brooklyn! he said its way too expensive to live there but wouldn't change it

Wow!...5 people in a one bedroom...wonder what happened when the lights went out at night...:lol::banana::lol:

Wow!...5 people in a one bedroom...wonder what happened when the lights went out at night...:lol::banana::lol:

Last year, Whistler police found 72 people in one house...mostly resort staff.

Last year, Whistler police found 72 people in one house...mostly resort staff.

That is insane! But on the other hand, if that happened in Vancouver, they all would get an award of some kind.:lol::nuts:

Isn't there some plan by Whistler council to house sla... er, staff in empty shipping containers?

http://www.thecontainerman.com/images/standard_large.jpg

Looks comfy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Containers_ContainerCare_Copenhagen.JPG

Future neighbourhood

Richmond seems to be in the same boat as Coquitlam, in that there is a lot of population growth forcasted, but the transportation infrustructure can't support it in it's current state. A common problem everywhere, but especially in those areas it seems.

Except that Richmond was never supposed to be a bustling area. Growth was supposed to occur in Coquitlam - which it is. However, a lot of the development in Richmond, especially the towers, is happening because of RAV. Stupid province not listening to the region :ohno: Oh well though, I'm sure it'll be the Province footing the bill when they have to raise dikes and whatnot :lol:

Why can't it be both? High density development directly near the Skytrain line, and more single family detached homes further east. I think its highly unjust that young families desiring a house are almost always forced out into the far reaches of the municipality, when it could be done much closer to the nerve-center of the region. People starting off should not be forced to choose between spending $600,000 just for a home they will probably have to renovate for even more bucks (thereby plunging them into even deeper debt), or get a home for almost half that sum, but now be faced with longer and more costly commute to your new home somewhere 45 minutes from where you work, all for the sake of a few cranberry fields?

Maybe, if you can't afford a house, then don't get a friggin house!

It's all market forces frankly. Not enough land to sprawl anymore - so properties that take up a lot of land become more expensive. So, time to find a place that takes up less land: townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condos, etc.

And, even if you were to develop the ALR, you would get a bunch of cheap houses for a bit. But once all that land was paved over, you'd be back where we are today - almost completely built out with the problem of unaffordable *single-family* housing

Except that Richmond was never supposed to be a bustling area. Growth was supposed to occur in Coquitlam - which it is. However, a lot of the development in Richmond, especially the towers, is happening because of RAV. Stupid province not listening to the region :ohno: Oh well though, I'm sure it'll be the Province footing the bill when they have to raise dikes and whatnot :lol:

lol @ you being jealous

Are you mad that Richmond >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coquitlam ?

Maybe, if you can't afford a house, then don't get a friggin house!

It's all market forces frankly. Not enough land to sprawl anymore - so properties that take up a lot of land become more expensive. So, time to find a place that takes up less land: townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condos, etc.

And, even if you were to develop the ALR, you would get a bunch of cheap houses for a bit. But once all that land was paved over, you'd be back where we are today - almost completely built out with the problem of unaffordable *single-family* housing

i bet that if they built 10,000 new single family homes on alr land they would still cost 800,000$ a piece. there is no reason for the price to go down they wouldnt be able to build them fast enough and construction costs!. fact is most developers arent making more than the standard 15-20 percent on most developments these days, land and construction are just that expensive here

Except that Richmond was never supposed to be a bustling area. Growth was supposed to occur in Coquitlam - which it is. However, a lot of the development in Richmond, especially the towers, is happening because of RAV. Stupid province not listening to the region :ohno: Oh well though, I'm sure it'll be the Province footing the bill when they have to raise dikes and whatnot :lol:

Meh, we'll leave the future generations in 100 years figure that one out. :lol::banana:

Seriously though, thousands of coastal urban areas will be facing the same problem. I'm sure we'll figure that one out, with a solution that doesn't involve exodus....the dikes as you said. Though you could expect hundreds of millions of refugees from coastal cities that do not have the resources to protect their cities from the rising waters, and I would imagine a lot of those immigrants will be ending up right here in B.C.

And with regards to the Canada Line and with the unprecedented and unplanned growth happening in No.3 Road, only more of a reason why the Canada Line should've had longer platforms.

Maybe, if you can't afford a house, then don't get a friggin house!

It's all market forces frankly. Not enough land to sprawl anymore - so properties that take up a lot of land become more expensive. So, time to find a place that takes up less land: townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condos, etc.

And, even if you were to develop the ALR, you would get a bunch of cheap houses for a bit. But once all that land was paved over, you'd be back where we are today - almost completely built out with the problem of unaffordable *single-family* housing

Ya, market forces, that are manipulated by restricting the supply to artificially increase the price. Again, families will always prefer housing with a yard,(which INCLUDE townhomes and duplexes) and will endure a longer commute to get them, so ignoring that fact and waiting for them to go away isn't going to work. (See gateway). And actually, there is plenty of land.

Also, you are right about the notion of increasing the land available will only solve the problem temporarily. However, doing nothing about it certainly won't help (even temporarily). And, over the past 15 years, there has been a far greater supply of apartments built, yet that has done nothing to slow the price climb, and has actually made sprawl even worse evidenced by the rapid development in the Fraser Valley.

i bet that if they built 10,000 new single family homes on alr land they would still cost 800,000$ a piece. there is no reason for the price to go down they wouldnt be able to build them fast enough and construction costs!. fact is most developers arent making more than the standard 15-20 percent on most developments these days, land and construction are just that expensive here

I bet the price would go down. Its a little thing called supply and demand. (See: the reason why gold is just so gosh darned expensive).

Last time i checked 15-20% profit is still a really healthy margin and the whining about high construction costs is just something your neighborhood developer tells you to soothe you while he gouges you on price.

Richmond's population may jut to about 500,000 in the 2030s. why that?

^ they meant the City Centre, not the entire city population. The City Centre population is 40,000 today....it'll triple to 120,000 by 2030s.