From The Sun:

Lower Mainland flops on efforts to slow down sprawl
Region allocated increased amount of land to development, Seattle think-tank finds
Doug Ward, Vancouver Sun
Published: Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The region failed to curb population sprawl in recent years after some success in creating more compact communities in the '90s, a new report shows.
The share of new urban and suburban growth that went into pedestrian-oriented development in Metro Vancouver declined from 2001 through 2006, according to the Sightline Institute.

Using 2006 census data, the Seattle-based think-tank found that the amount of land developed in Metro Vancouver to accommodate new residents increased compared with the two previous census periods.

Nevertheless, Metro Vancouver's growth has been "fairly compact" in comparison to many U.S. cities, according to Sightline research director Clark Williams-Derry.

"Yet there are signs that Greater Vancouver's smart-growth leadership may be slipping," said Williams-Derry, in the report entitled Slowing Down.

"The region marked its clearest smart-growth successes before 2001.

"Somewhat surprisingly, the pace of compact growth slowed over the most recent census interval."

Compact neighbourhoods accounted for just 56 per cent of new urban and suburban development, compared with 67 per cent during the '90s.

In an interview, Williams-Derry said that the decline in density could be connected to a slowdown in the rate of population growth in the region between 2001-2006 compared to the previous census periods.

When governments are faced with a high influx of new people, they are often more willing to accommodate people in concentrated areas than during times of low population growth, he said.

While giving the region a failing grade, the report did praise Vancouver and North Vancouver for creating smart-growth neighbourhoods. These two cities were followed in ranking by New Westminster, Burnaby, White Rock and Richmond.

Between 2001 and 2006, Vancouver's pedestrian-oriented communities had a net growth of 27,000 residents -- about four-fifths of the net population growth for the city.

In Metro Vancouver, about one out of every eight residents lives in a neighbourhood with pedestrian-oriented densities with the City of Vancouver home to nearly two-thirds of them.
The Vancouver area led the region in another category -- the share of residents living in neighbourhoods with at least 20 residents per acre.

In Vancouver, three out of four residents lived in such "compact" densities as of 2006. Similarly, four other municipalities -- Burnaby, New Westminster, White Rock and North Vancouver -- had one in three residents at such densities.

But even these numbers are low, according to the report, citing research suggesting that urban densities exceeding 40 residents per acre are required for travel on foot and bicycle to really flourish.

Sightline's report was based on data from the last four census findings. The think-tank divided the landscape of Metro Vancouver into a 30-by-30 metre grid for each census period. In each grid Sightline calculated the population density of circles containing at least 500 residents.

Williams-Derry said in the report that the trend towards greater sprawl is undermining Premier Gordon Campbell's goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by one-third by 2020.

He said that climate-changing emissions can only be reduced if progress is made "in creating compact, transit-and-pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods that ease car dependence for B.C. residents."

This problem will be irrelevant once fuel rises to about $3, 4, or 5 in a few years. Unfortunately parts of Surrey and Langley could become ghettos in the process.

This problem will be irrelevant once fuel rises to about $3, 4, or 5 in a few years. Unfortunately parts of Surrey and Langley could become ghettos in the process.

Exactly, what I think.
Higher fuel prices first cause people to first disown their SUV's and even higher prices will cause them to disavow suburbia.

I think I remember something about a proposal for a greenbelt around Vancouver, similar to Portland's. I have not heard that issue brought up for awhile.

we already have the ALR and the GVRD green zone, both of which form more or less a green belt

"We want to have 4 kids and 2 dogs and have a great big backyard so they can play in it, 7 bedrooms, 3-car garage including room to park our Chevy Suburban, a place to put our RV and boat, a swimming pool with jacuzzi and sauna."

It's too bad some people's idea of a status symbol is about living in excess.

We need to market walkable neighbourhoods where you can buy fresh groceries a block away and have access to quick convenient transit service. That having one or two children is equally as fulfilling as four (not to mention better for our overpopulating world). And we can drive fuel efficient (luxury) compacts instead of hauling around in gas guzzling SUVs. Access to safe, well kept public parks to take the children to...

Sigh. At least that's my dream.

Just a thought... these people who claim they want to live out in the suburbs because it's better for their children without considerring that their children or grandchildren are going to be living in a resource scarce world down the road. I only live out in Mission because this was the only place I could afford at the time but right now I could afford a 1 bedroom in lovely New West.

This problem will be irrelevant once fuel rises to about $3, 4, or 5 in a few years. Unfortunately parts of Surrey and Langley could become ghettos in the process.

no it won't.

there is over half a million people living in surrey and east of it. where would these people go? into burnaby and vancouver? it would be impossible to build the infrastructure fast enough to even contemplate it.

what may happen is:

1) people may start leaving the burbs for the city. the price of housing goes up it the city and the price of housing goes down in the suburbs. eventually, the price will be really favourable in the suburbs and people will move back. there is a balance with economics and utility.

2) business move to the 'burbs to keep their employees happy.

"We want to have 4 kids and 2 dogs and have a great big backyard so they can play in it, 7 bedrooms, 3-car garage including room to park our Chevy Suburban, a place to put our RV and boat, a swimming pool with jacuzzi and sauna."

It's too bad some people's idea of a status symbol is about living in excess.

We need to market walkable neighbourhoods where you can buy fresh groceries a block away and have access to quick convenient transit service. That having one or two children is equally as fulfilling as four (not to mention better for our overpopulating world). And we can drive fuel efficient (luxury) compacts instead of hauling around in gas guzzling SUVs. Access to safe, well kept public parks to take the children to...

Sigh. At least that's my dream.

Just a thought... these people who claim they want to live out in the suburbs because it's better for their children without considerring that their children or grandchildren are going to be living in a resource scarce world down the road. I only live out in Mission because this was the only place I could afford at the time but right now I could afford a 1 bedroom in lovely New West.



in this city, moving into one of your dream neighbourhoods is about the same price (if not more expensive) than a house in surrey or beyond. therefore, the status symbol may just as well be the fancy condo in the fancy neighbourhood and living in excess may mean granite counter top and dining out every night to escape the 650 sqft box that the person lives in. do not be quick to judge how people spend their money.

one more thing, the number of children a person has is none of my or your business. whether the number lies between 0 or 18, that number is okay. do not be so quick to judge how people organize their families. besides, do not believe the overpopulation argument. around the world, the birth rate is well below the rate needed to keep a stable population.

one more thing, the number of children a person has is none of my or your business. whether the number lies between 0 or 18, that number is okay. do not be so quick to judge how people organize their families

Yes it is my business, because when the parents cannot support the children, all of the sudden it becomes my (the taxpayers) responsibility.

It also seems to be my responsibility to pay for their schools and everything else, including their healthcare.

If a family of three paid X in taxes and one of nine paid 3X, and if you taxed the large family for their bigger share of everything they consume and all of their higher carbon footprints, then I may have no beef. In reality, it's the oppossitte, I pay more because I have a small family. Those 18 children will jam the roads, require more school buses, more energy, more of everything.

Watch the upcoming National Geographic Special on the tube if you want to see what ONE human being consumes in their life. It will shock you.

It is definitely my business.

news flash DrT,

i contribute to your healthcare via taxes and your children will contribute to your pension. there has always been poor families and their children have every opportunity to grow up and be something in this country.

if you are worried about your taxes you should know that people generally draw from the public coffers at two points in their lives: at the beginning and at the end (and generally, the end is the most expensive). i hate to imagine what you think we should do with our elderly.


who said anything about parents not being able to support their children?


you come across as very ignorant.

who said anything about parents not being able to support their children?

We have 30 million people on food stamps in the US. Most of those are mothers with children whose "husbands" have disappeared.

Guess who's paying? Guess who gets to play surrogate breadwinner? Guess who will pay for their schooling? Guess who is paying for their healthcare? Guess who is paying for their housing?

The days where you need a large family to help you plow the fields are over.
Ironically, it is the poor that have the most children. The mindset of having big families must change for our planet to survive with any kind of quality of life.

And PS, you can leave out the personal insults.

Vancouver will continue to sprawl.
It use to be that someone could still afford a small house reseonable close to the city but thoose days are long gone.
Even 2 people trying to afford a one bedroom apt is a stuggle if not impossible. People have the right to decent housing and for many low income people or people with a chils tha means the Frazer Valley. Even the valley is still much more expensive than most of Canada's inner city housing yet wages in Vancouver are only at th national par.
People will continue to move out further as Vancouver is also one of the few cities in the country whos housing prices continues to rise.
For most, living along the SkyTrain is no longer an option due to higher prices along it's corridor.
Vancouverites also have to deal with bridges and so the people who work in the valley want to live there as opposed to living anywhere else in the region to avoid the termina backups on our few bridges.
Also, although I like the ALR it has resulted in further sprawl in the valley because there is limited land for housing {ie Delta} which means trying to get a house closer to the city is even more difficult.

^^^^ Very well put. People will continue to move where they can get the most for their money, and Vancouver is out of reach financially for most which will lead to more and more people choosing to live in the suburbs which, as a result, will cause more sprawl.

in this city, moving into one of your dream neighbourhoods is about the same price (if not more expensive) than a house in surrey or beyond. therefore, the status symbol may just as well be the fancy condo in the fancy neighbourhood and living in excess may mean granite counter top and dining out every night to escape the 650 sqft box that the person lives in. do not be quick to judge how people spend their money.

one more thing, the number of children a person has is none of my or your business. whether the number lies between 0 or 18, that number is okay. do not be so quick to judge how people organize their families. besides, do not believe the overpopulation argument. around the world, the birth rate is well below the rate needed to keep a stable population.

No no believe me I fully understand that my actions have consequences. I have a carbon footprint just like everyone else on the planet. There are many with much smaller carbon footprints than me, some with considerably larger. I am doing my part to reduce my carbon footprint each year yet some people think they have a right to consume consume consume. Example... in Vancouver it's considered normal for people to take transit or ride their bicycles or whatever to get around town. Look at Edmonton or Surrey, they tend to look down on you if you don't drive. Out here in the Fraser Valley, buses are definitely Loser Cruisers and I feel like a crusader being a person who makes a decent salary and has a nice car he could drive yet chooses to take public transit. And I have a smile on my face when I see more and more people like myself doing the same.

I say the world is overpopulated right now because well... if we can't produce enough food to feed every person on the planet then we seriously have a big problem don't we?

quote from DKaz
I say the world is overpopulated right now because well... if we can't produce enough food to feed every person on the planet then we seriously have a big problem don't we?

Precisely.

What many here are saying is that living close to the city center is becoming too expensive for the majority of people and that they will be forced to sprawl further and further away because of the simple economic realities.

The logical conclusion is then that sprawl will be nearly directly proportional to POPULATION GROWTH.

it would be impossible to build the infrastructure fast enough to even contemplate it.

Perhaps, but once chronic inflation kicks in the first thing people will start sacrificing is their driving. They'll be forced to move whether they or the government wants to or not. Think semi-legal multi-family houses. Some parks might even see squatters.


1) people may start leaving the burbs for the city. the price of housing goes up it the city and the price of housing goes down in the suburbs. eventually, the price will be really favourable in the suburbs and people will move back. there is a balance with economics and utility.
If a house in Surrey crashes to $50,000 yet you spend half your paycheque commuting every day, why bother?

Oil prices are only going up whether we like it or not. The effects will go far beyond the gas station.

2) business move to the 'burbs to keep their employees happy.
You generally locate to the core if you want to minimize commuting energy use. All the SkyTrain and rail lines converge there.

Precisely.

What many here are saying is that living close to the city center is becoming too expensive for the majority of people and that they will be forced to sprawl further and further away because of the simple economic realities.

The logical conclusion is then that sprawl will be nearly directly proportional to POPULATION GROWTH.


well actually, if you want to be specific, urbanism with its sprawl in indirectly proportional to population growth. canada's birth rate of about 10.8 per 1000 births is about the lowest it has been since 1921. however, since then we have seen explosive growth in our cities and suburbs. basically, the only reason why canada in growing at all is because of immigration.

No no believe me I fully understand that my actions have consequences. I have a carbon footprint just like everyone else on the planet. There are many with much smaller carbon footprints than me, some with considerably larger. I am doing my part to reduce my carbon footprint each year yet some people think they have a right to consume consume consume. Example... in Vancouver it's considered normal for people to take transit or ride their bicycles or whatever to get around town. Look at Edmonton or Surrey, they tend to look down on you if you don't drive. Out here in the Fraser Valley, buses are definitely Loser Cruisers and I feel like a crusader being a person who makes a decent salary and has a nice car he could drive yet chooses to take public transit. And I have a smile on my face when I see more and more people like myself doing the same.

I say the world is overpopulated right now because well... if we can't produce enough food to feed every person on the planet then we seriously have a big problem don't we?

actually, i wish secretly wish i had the inner fortitude to more consistently take the "loser cruiser" (as you put it). i, like most people, am addicted to my vehicle and feel that the non-car services provided suck. hopefully, this changes.

however, do not believe the operpopulation myth. google it. there is more than enough food to go around. its politics and war that make people go hungry, not the lack of food production or distribution.

... basically, the only reason why canada in growing at all is because of immigration.

That is absolutely correct, but growth is growth.

Most highly developed countries have stable to slightly negative domestic population growth rates, but this is entirely dwarfed by third world population increases and in many countries by substantial immigration from these less developed countries.

You also alluded to increasing urbanization, which is a trend throughout the world, as people flee "the land" for more opportunities in the cities.

For Canadian cities in particular, we need to think of ways to make living in dense areas cheaper. This can be accomplished in many ways.

One reason condos have become so expensive are the onerous regulations, impact fees, build "social housing" regulations, pay for heritage restoration, pay for public artwork, etc. that developers face. We need to HELP developers building inside the city, NOT SOAK them. Other policies, such as tax policy, needs to encourage families to live in the cities, instead of the burbs. We could, for example, have higher property tax rates for suburbia, to reflect the higher expense of providing them with services. Other carrots could certainly be employed.

With Vancouver prices those fees are relativly small.
Most is speculation. Calgary has far higher wage costs than Vancouver but housing is still 30% cheaper.
People see high prices so spend anything to get into the market that makes more people to get into the market all of which raises prices and is an endless cycle.
How can a condo that was built just two years ago be 25% more expensive and twice as much as it was 7 years ago..........its not just fees and wages and material prices haven't gone up near that rate.

With Vancouver prices those fees are relativly small.
Most is speculation. Calgary has far higher wage costs than Vancouver but housing is still 30% cheaper.
People see high prices so spend anything to get into the market that makes more people to get into the market all of which raises prices and is an endless cycle.
How can a condo that was built just two years ago be 25% more expensive and twice as much as it was 7 years ago..........its not just fees and wages and material prices haven't gone up near that rate.

Excellent points.
But people SPECULATE FOR A REASON, they are not stupid. The reason is that REPACEMENT COSTS are seen as going inexorably up. It is a combination of factors, including higher steel, concrete, etc. prices, higher wages, higher energy costs, higher land costs (partly due to regulation), and the host of city demands previously alluded to.
As energy prices rise, proximity to public transport is also seen as more valuable. The estimate is, given two equal condos, one near and one far from transport, the close one is worth approximately $100,000 more.

so how does that explain some developers just breaking even, or in some cases running out of money like that one near the kingsgate mall. i know there is a lot of money in real estate, but are most developers making more than the standard 15-20 % return on investment?

i'd like to see some pro-forma's from some recent condo developments.

^^
so how does that explain some developers just breaking even, or in some cases running out of money like that one near the kingsgate mall.

Even at today's very high sale prices, what you pointed out above shows how difficult and expensive it is to build, and why investors are betting that it will not get cheaper to build and buying now, bidding the prices even higher.

so speculation is causing prices to rise to a price where it becomes profitable to build... sounds like the prices would be high anyways...

so now my question is how can prices be so much less in new developments in other cities

so now my question is how can prices be so much less in new developments in other cities


Fundamentals drive price differences between cities and between different areas in the same city.
The two fundamentals being:
1. Desirability of the location (very subjective, but includes ammenities such
as sports and arts facilities, weather, "hippness", "quality of life" and
whatever else people think they want) that attracks the retirees, the
wealthy, and the self-employed.
2. Job market (number of employers, the availability of employment, wages,
etc) that attracts employees.

Once a nucleus is formed that attracts people and employers, it is a positive feedback loop that may dramatically skew supply/demand.

i know these things but if were just breaking even then how are other cities getting this stuff out cheaper than us?

I still don't think that I answered what you were getting at, but in less desirable areas, land is enormously cheaper, usually the demands from the cities or other government jurisdictions on the developers are fewer and wages in a depressed area for the construction crew may be less. Clients (purchasers) are also less demanding and they can build with less quality/fewer amenities.

Woodward's is a good example of the costs that have to be shouldered by the buyers of the market units.

From Wiki:
The 330 million dollar project, includes 536 market housing units,125 singles non-market housing units to be operated by PHS Community Services,75 family non-market housing units to be operated by Affordable Housing Society, Nestors Food Store and London Drugs, TD Bank, shops, community and public space, federal and civic offices, a daycare, and a new addition to the SFU downtown campus: the 130,000 sf School for Contemporary Arts. The oldest part of the complex (built 1903–1908) will be restored, and will serve as non-profit community space( 31,500 sf) which will include space for Aids Vancouver among many others.

So, the 500+ buyers have to subsidize 200 non-market units plus alot of other "public" space. Every buyer is roughly paying for one and a half units, rather than just theirs.

Wrong, the market housing is not paying for the non-market housing at Woodwards. The costs are being paid for by the government. Same with the non-profit office space and the SFU campus.

I don't know any developer making 15-20%, if you know their secret let me know.

New Construction isn't all that much cheaper in other cities if we are talking condos, on houses yes as the major cost here is the land. On condos the psf between a new concrete condo in Burnaby/Surrey or Calgary even Regina are not very far apart.

yeah i didn't think that DCC's were a very significant part of the total costs but they obviously add a few dollars.

as for the 15-20 percent, i just assumed that because it is a high risk investment that they wouldn't build for less than that.

so perhaps this is why we dont see many condo's in regina. cause they couldnt charge the same prices as are possible in this market.

There is a demand for condos in Regina, but it's much lower. Most people (especially in smaller cities) if given the choice between a 1000sqft 2 bd+den concrete condo or a 2000sqft wood-framed house with a yard for the same price would take the house. That's the situation there, as land prices are still insignificate (even after the current price increases).

Wrong, the market housing is not paying for the non-market housing at Woodwards. The costs are being paid for by the government. Same with the non-profit office space and the SFU campus.

Reference please. Tell us the breakdown of what the city is paying.

I have not seen that taxpayers were significantly subsidizing this, except maybe to rent some of the "public space" once the project is finished.

Vancouver will also continue to spread more than most cities due to several factors:
Vancouver has an extremly low employment concentration. The number of people working downtown is quite samell when considering it's size. Calgary is the complete opposite.
UBC, SFU, VGH, City Hall, NorthVan filming centres, BC Ferries, Delta Port, Annasis Island, YVR, only one campus of a community college .............all the city's largest employers and none are downtown.
Poor commuter rail/bus system. Vancouver's main hwy has HOV lanes whhich are ideal for commuter buses to Broadway/Downtown and there isn't one.
Many new suburban office parks which are not served by transit. Down here in South Surrey they are building a monsterous office/light manufacturing centre with 20 different buildings. It really does look like a university. It is massive but were allowed to build it truly in the middle of nowhere. There is no bus route within one km. Driving is a neccessity.
This backed up by extremly high real estate make for a recipe for sprawl.

The city isn't paying it was the BC government that paid $27Million for those units. See link below.

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050118/a14.htm

The taxpayers are also paying for the SFU campus, trust me.

The city isn't paying it was the BC government that paid $27Million for those units. See link below.

http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20050118/a14.htm


Thanks for the info. I was not aware of this large tax subsidy.

ssiguy2 Vancouver will also continue to spread more than most cities due to several factors:
Vancouver has an extremly low employment concentration. The number of people working downtown is quite samell when considering it's size. Calgary is the complete opposite.
UBC, SFU, VGH, City Hall, NorthVan filming centres, BC Ferries, Delta Port, Annasis Island, YVR, only one campus of a community college .............all the city's largest employers and none are downtown.
Poor commuter rail/bus system. Vancouver's main hwy has HOV lanes whhich are ideal for commuter buses to Broadway/Downtown and there isn't one.
Many new suburban office parks which are not served by transit. Down here in South Surrey they are building a monsterous office/light manufacturing centre with 20 different buildings. It really does look like a university. It is massive but were allowed to build it truly in the middle of nowhere. There is no bus route within one km. Driving is a neccessity.
This backed up by extremly high real estate make for a recipe for sprawl.

Yes, this is the problem with alot of cities though, they have no center.
It necessitates a grid type transport system, rather than hub and spoke type layout.

The main point you made, that the incentives do not appear to be strong enough to lure development near public transport, is the supposition of this thread. The will to fight sprawl appears weak at best.

ssiguy... im not sure how far we can spread with the ALR and the greenzone... do you have any stats on how many parcels of land were removed from the alr in surrey in the past 10 years... im pretty sure the number is close to 1.

No idea.

Interesting link on sprawl in the GVRD:
http://www.sightline.org/publications/reports/slowing-down/slowing-down-may-20.pdf from the smartgrowth.bc.ca website.

Also on ALR at http://www.sightline.org/publications/reports/slowing-down/slowing-down-may-20.pdf

Small loss from ALR last year, but not bad.
From The Sun:




Protected farmland base reaps biggest loss in a decade
Agricultural Land Reserve loses 632 hectares in 2007, the third year of reductions since 2003
Derek Penner, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, August 05, 2008



British Columbia's Agricultural Land Reserve experienced its biggest net loss of land in the last 10 years in 2007, with property carved off to satisfy needs for industrial developments in the north and desires for resort and residential subdivisions in the south.

The B.C. Agricultural Land Commission, according to its annual report, approved applications to take 1,220 hectares of farmland out of the 4.76-million-hectare reserve but only approved the addition of 588 hectares of non-farmland, leaving a net loss of 632 hectares.

It was the third year in the last five that the commission approved net reductions in the province's protected farm base, eroding the last big addition made to the ALR in 1999.


The commission, in its report, said it reviewed 666 applications in 2007, the highest number in the last five years, during which the trend of declining requests for exclusion, addition or subdivision of farmland reversed itself.

Colin Fry, executive director of the Agricultural Land Commission, said applications to the commission declined steadily from 1990 to 2003, which saw just 463 applications.

The biggest areas of exclusion were in the northern region, where the commission allowed the removal of 543 hectares, the Okanagan, where 287 hectares were allowed out, and the Kootenays which saw 287 hectares taken out of the reserve.

The land commission's south-coast region, which includes the fertile Fraser Valley, allowed 73 hectares to be removed from the reserve, with 71 hectares classified as having "prime" agricultural capability.

However, Fry said about 40 hectares of the land removed were from an application to take the Chilliwack landfill out of the reserve.

Fry added that the landfill predated the ALR's creation in 1973, and had already been debilitated as farm land, regardless of what capabilities it had before that.

"The vast majority of exclusions were looked as being, once the commission looked at them, land that had limited or no agricultural capability," Fry said in an interview.

That is not to say the ALR faces pressure from growth.

Fry said the Fraser Valley's population has grown and the infrastructure needed to support that population has been expanded.

"There is an urban, agricultural boundary," Fry added, "and yes, there is often pressure to look at agricultural land as an opportunity to relieve some of these [growth pressures]."

"That's where the commission has an obligation to be a custodian of that border and of the land uses within the ALR."

However, critics of the land commission maintain that it hasn't done enough to protect agricultural land.

"The fact we're still losing farm land from some of the prime areas is really unacceptable," said Dave Sands, a member of the ALR Protection and Enhancement committee, a farming-advocacy group and a retired provincial ministry of agriculture regional director, in an interview.

"The vision has to be first, 'how do we feed ourselves,'" Sands said, "but that's not what we're doing."

"We're saying 'how do we handle transportation, how do we build new houses,' and they put that secondly the fact we have to eat."

Single-family homes should be outlawed, unless the neighbourhood looks like Shaughnessy or Point Grey. Families have proven to do just fine in townhouses and condos, there's no need for those cookie-cutter land eating urban blights. If I were mayor, I would instantly zone all of low-density Richmond as 4-storey residential, like those developments around Steveston.