Cameron Oscienny

If it is extremely unlikely for a property to end up abandoned, with no one willing to pay associated user fees, then why charge upfront? These charges have their place, but it is hard to believe property developed in Metro Van is one of those places.

(3/3) Given political feasibility and the current situation the most important action is policy change allowing for greater densification. There is room for improvement (eg allowing more flexibility in building forms) but both the Broadway Plan and prov. changes are steps in the right direction.

(2/3) ... means socially important benefits are diffuse and occur in the future while existing residents face salient costs in present. IMO it seems politically possible to reduce how much this type of densification is restricted.

(1/3)"you have to show people how things benefit them directly" - To achieve a fairer society sometimes changes are needed which do not directly benefit certain people. This type of densification is one of those changes. The attributes and distribution of costs and benefits inherent to it ...

Or are differences just due to changing preferences / goals? Ex, I think heritage buildings (big porches, etc) often have great street connection. Therefore concentrating new density in towers (leaving more frontage for old homes) is better in this regard than equiv. new density in lower rise forms.

(1/2) I think bringing atttention to design is good. After reading article it isn't clear to me that there is a relative lack of attention to design - did other plans more clearly state / have greater design requirements? If so, are these being dealt with in another way now?

Single-family house form beside a tower.

IMO graduation is often overrated, with good design abrupt changes in height can be fine, and the tower form allows for easier public land value capture (in the given context). Maybe there are other elements of the plan that are concerning design-wise, but tower next to low-rise doesn't seem so bad.

I think the use of price signals (similar to this proposal: eprints.lse.ac.uk/568/1/Price_...) or greater use of price signals to inform targets seems better than the current approach. It could also be used on a more granular scale to inform location of new housing within cities.

Given the desirability of the area, proximity to jobs, and compatibility with other planning goals (eg viewcone pres) I hope approval of extension will be tied to local gov commitment to allow for very sig increase in housing supply (moreso than Broadway Plan). I'm hopeful given info in article.

Based on my reading of Bertraud, I think this is in line w/ how he thinks about planning interventions.

On a related note - Bertraud is going to present on the 15 minute city concept to head off an online debate on that subject. Should be interesting: aesop-planning.eu/tg-news/ethi...

I think intervening to address specific issues often occurs in the NA planning context, however (amongst other issues) the issue is costs and benefits are often incompletely accounted for or ignored. Eg, infill may have neg impact on immediate neighbours, but overall oft sig net benefit.

And maybe it would be an improvement for planners to communicate (incl. to decision-makers) how planning decisions align with common concepts of justice. Eg, according to a Rawlsian approach we shouldn't concentrate new housing on dangerous and loud streets.

As others have said, planners generally don't have the power to design cities to this extent. However, (and admittedly it might be a long shot) maybe using a Rawlsian approach / framing would help reduce opposition to new housing / densification.

Can't German municipalities actively participate in the property market? If so, why isn't public purchase and (partial) development a suitable enough land policy instrument?

Personally I think the urbanism is nice, but some key factors in its creation (space constraints / transport infrastructure / high land prices) have led to very high rents in the metro.

... given current zoning, or? I would have thought the impact of allowing low-rise wood frame (5-6 stories) all throughout urban areas would be greater than that of any feasible reduction in construction costs.

Debunking the unaffordability myth: First 30 projects will double affordable housing in Broadway corridor - Goodman Commercial Inc. It’s time to put an end to the increasingly common – but completely inaccurate – suggestion that the City of Vancouver’s new, denser zoning regulations will chase lower income renters out of the Broad...

Broadway Plan should result in a net increase in below-market, and a large increase in market, rentals. Ending the apartment ban may be worthwhile, but why shouldn't this new housing (which is also paying for below market housing) be allowed near rapid transit?

goodmanreport.com/market-insig...

(2/2) 2nd (efficient use of infra) is an added cost issue. CACs still exist in BC. If dev willing to pay a CAC equal to or greater than the estimated added cost (of ineffcient infrastructure) to muni, then why not approve?

(1/2) Acc to article staff report gives 2 reasons why staff rec denying. 1st one (living in const. zone) should already have sufficient regs (noise bylaws, etc), be evident to new residents, and could even be mitigated through design.

I think framing it as 'bad' vs 'good' regulations is mostly unhelpful (w/ lim exceptions) and planning/permitting should move away from that. Planners don't seem to like framing it as tradeoffs (costs vs benefits, w/ winnners & losers), but that seems more accurate more often.

Which instruments do you think are necessary or helpful for making progress on the path to sustainable and affordable cities?