Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vancouver Special

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Vancouver Special

#31

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ripley12 wrote: post #25
Patrick_Devine wrote: post #20

The concept of a cheap, post-war house that you can finish out yourself is great... for certain places. There isn't really room in Vancouver for them any more, as [Vancouverism]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism ) has taken over much of the city (i.e. low podium of 2-4 floors with a slender 100m tower). Vancouver's biggest problem right now is housing affordability, and "the missing middle" (i.e. 20-30m hig…

> Vancouverism has taken over much of the city There are plenty of towers downtown but the rest of Vancouver (i.e. most of the city by land area) is still zoned for suburban levels of density: https://twitter.com/Scott_dLB/status/1599177703466610688

There are towers outside of downtown. In the 90s, I marveled at Vancouver's density compared to Seattle. But I guess it is a matter of perspective.

Re: Vancouver Special

#32

Post by ripley12 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #31
ripley12 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vancouverism has taken over much of the city There are plenty of towers downtown but the rest of Vancouver (i.e. most of the city by land area) is still zoned for suburban levels of density: https://twitter.com/Scott_dLB/status/1599177703466610688

There are towers outside of downtown. In the 90s, I marveled at Vancouver's density compared to Seattle. But I guess it is a matter of perspective.

There are a few, but the vast majority of Vancouver’s residential land still bans apartment/condo buildings of any height: https://twitter.com/GRIDSVancouver/status/640544192045826049

Re: Vancouver Special

#33

Post by 99_00 »

ripley12 wrote: post #18
derefr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ken Sim (Vancouver's new mayor) had significantly improving permitting speeds and decisions as a key plank in his platform. It's nice to say, but I heard a consistent response from the Vancouver subreddit every time this has been brought up that permitting speeds in Vancouver have been more down to how hard it is to hire/train/retain code inspectors, than down to how many red-tape policies they need to evaluate a p…

> permitting speeds in Vancouver have been more down to how hard it is to hire/train/retain code inspectors, than down to how many red-tape policies they need to evaluate a plan against I'm not sure about that. I'm sure there's a bit of both but Vancouver has remarkably complex (and often unique to Vancouver) policies for pretty much everything to do with real estate.

It's an 18 hour course.

Re: Vancouver Special

#34

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ripley12 wrote: post #32
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are towers outside of downtown. In the 90s, I marveled at Vancouver's density compared to Seattle. But I guess it is a matter of perspective.

There are a few, but the vast majority of Vancouver’s residential land still bans apartment/condo buildings of any height: https://twitter.com/GRIDSVancouver/status/640544192045826049

Ya, I've been to a few residential areas in Vancouver, the same is true in most cities (definitely Seattle). I get focusing towers in areas where the density can be supported, but at the same time we need to incrementally allocate more area for tower construction.

Re: Vancouver Special

#35

Post by anon7725 »

bombcar wrote: post #27
cperciva wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first generation of Vancouver Special owners were largely families who occupied the entire property. By the late 90s either their kids had moved out and they had space to spare or they sold their homes (at much higher prices!) to families who needed to help pay the mortgage. BTW the "slightly below grade" situation is helped by Vancouver having lots of hills -- in many cases the front door is at grade even though…

That "grade" situation is especially fun in very hilly areas - I remember a relative's house in Seattle somewhere that had three "ground floor doors" on different levels because the hill was so steep. Even relatively flat terrain can have "walk out basements" which make what is technically a basement feel more like a ground floor.

> Seattle somewhere

Tons of houses like that in Phinney Ridge.

Re: Vancouver Special

#36

Post by clairity »

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #20

The concept of a cheap, post-war house that you can finish out yourself is great... for certain places. There isn't really room in Vancouver for them any more, as [Vancouverism]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism ) has taken over much of the city (i.e. low podium of 2-4 floors with a slender 100m tower). Vancouver's biggest problem right now is housing affordability, and "the missing middle" (i.e. 20-30m hig…

> "...'the missing middle' (i.e. 20-30m high buildings)..."

the missing middle isn't just what's between two extremes, so here, it's not 20-30m (~65-100ft, or roughly 6-10 stories) as you've stated, though i'd certainly prefer cities to adopt zoning that allows much more density too (along with the mixed-zoning, public transportation and micromobility upgrades needed to support that density).

the missing middle specifically refers to 2-6 story stick-framed buildings that can be built quickly and cheaply while also providing ~4-10× the density of single-family zoning. 6-10 story buildings don't fall in this category since they usually need at least a concrete podium for the first 1-4 stories, which puts it in a different (higher-priced) construction category.

the missing middle is literally the space between single-family homes and the 6+ story buildings that require more expensive construction techniques.

Re: Vancouver Special

#37

Post by [deleted] »

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #20

The concept of a cheap, post-war house that you can finish out yourself is great... for certain places. There isn't really room in Vancouver for them any more, as [Vancouverism]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism ) has taken over much of the city (i.e. low podium of 2-4 floors with a slender 100m tower). Vancouver's biggest problem right now is housing affordability, and "the missing middle" (i.e. 20-30m hig…

[deleted]

Re: Vancouver Special

#38

Post by klyrs »

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #20

The concept of a cheap, post-war house that you can finish out yourself is great... for certain places. There isn't really room in Vancouver for them any more, as [Vancouverism]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism ) has taken over much of the city (i.e. low podium of 2-4 floors with a slender 100m tower). Vancouver's biggest problem right now is housing affordability, and "the missing middle" (i.e. 20-30m hig…

"Fun" numbers on affordability.

A 3-bedroom rental unit is considered "affordable" if it rents at $4000/mo, or $48k/y[1]. The poverty line is at $60k[2] for a family of four. The city is encouraging developers to supply housing at a full 80% of poverty-level income, and wondering why tent cities keep growing.

[1] https://www.straight.com/news/4094-rent-for-three-bedrooms-n...

[2] https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/national-news/new-study-c...

Re: Vancouver Special

#39

Post by rsj_hn »

klyrs wrote: post #38
Patrick_Devine wrote: post #20

The concept of a cheap, post-war house that you can finish out yourself is great... for certain places. There isn't really room in Vancouver for them any more, as [Vancouverism]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism ) has taken over much of the city (i.e. low podium of 2-4 floors with a slender 100m tower). Vancouver's biggest problem right now is housing affordability, and "the missing middle" (i.e. 20-30m hig…

"Fun" numbers on affordability. A 3-bedroom rental unit is considered "affordable" if it rents at $4000/mo, or $48k/y[1]. The poverty line is at $60k[2] for a family of four. The city is encouraging developers to supply housing at a full 80% of poverty-level income, and wondering why tent cities keep growing. [1] https://www.straight.com/news/4094-rent-for-three-bedrooms-n... [2] https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/na…

You're not really taking a Canadian-wide definition of poverty and comparing it to a Vancouver-specific definition of affordability, are you? Because that would be just terrible.

The global poverty line is $785 but in New York City, the cutoff for cash aid is $83,250. Why does NYC keep giving aid to the top 1% !?

Post reply on HN