Peter Waldkirch

Excellent! I think a good overall message would point out that a one-sized-fits-all approach is not suitable for addressing the special role of Vancouver's housing shortage and its impact on the entire region; the SSMUH legislation to date simply has no impact here.

lol sorry that would have been good context to include huh

(Basically, a slight revision to the definition of "restricted zone for purposes of the provincial multiplex legislation, and some more enforcement tools)

news.gov.bc.ca/releases/202...

...to remove R1-1 from the definition of "restricted zone", even though the CoV multiplexes are a lot smaller than the what the province wants. So the multiplex stuff simply does not apply to most of the CoV.

Yeah, this is (imo) right--the Van Charter thing is also a problem, but re multiplexes specifically the problem is that, instead of being a true rule of universal application, the provincial multiplexes only apply to ares that are "restricted zones", and the CoV's multiplexes are enough...

AHV's regular happy hour is tonight--hope to see you there!

The Cancer Wolves by Fiona Moore (audio) Clarkesworld Science Fiction and Fantasy Magazine and Podcast.

Only have time to (or just prefer to) listen to short stories? The podcast episode for "The Cancer Wolves" by Fiona Moore is up.
clarkesworldmagazine.com/audio_10_25a/
or wherever you like to listen to podcasts
clarkesworldmagazine.com/podcasting/

Sadly the new provincial reforms to their multiplex system appear to continue to NOT apply to the City of Vancouver.

The Province continues to ignore Vancouver's housing shortage, the epicenter of the provincial housing crisis.

The DM be like

In 2022, Ken Sim said line item budget comparisons were the cornerstone of his budget policy if he got elected mayor.

In 2025, he voted against it happening for a budget presentation with potentially $100 million in cuts because his newly appointed city manager told him no.

Hey the meme account is posting truth bombs y'all

A person riding a bicycle holding a stick. They jam the stick labelled "0% Property Tax Increase" in the front wheel, then are lying on the ground in pain saying "Our aging public pools are falling apart and we don't have budget to replace them"

Happy Hour with Abundant Housing Vancouver Come meet your pro-housing neighbours at happy hour with AHV!

The weather is cooling down, the leaves are falling, and the October Happy Hour with Abundant Housing Vancouver is coming up!

Thursday, Oct 9
Rogue Wetbar in Waterfront Station
Starting 5 pm

See you there!

Vancouver City Council approved establishment of standardized apartment zoning districts today, as well as a significant City initiated rezoning in the Broadway Plan and Cambie Corridor areas. I delivered these remarks in closing during the item at Council:

ps good for Fry for voting yes! Despite his comments he, unlike Orr, had the courage to actually support a common sense change that makes it easier to build housing, yes, including social and non-profit housing

Ok it passes! Sean Orr abstained which I find hilarious. looooooooool

Sorry that was unclear: Sean Orr didn't have any questions for staff, but he did make comments.

Fry is sounding like a no on this, which is consistent with the NIMBY-ish leaning and history of the Vancouver Greens and his many "no" votes on housing. We'll see.

No comments from Sean Orr, which is interesting--I'm curious about how he votes. But he's 1st w/ comments: he voted no on it when referred to a public hearing, because he didn't have time to read & understand it.

Says he's torn on it. Wish he had more information to "make the right decision".

Now Fry is raising the NIMBY idea that it is somehow necessary for city council to scrutinize and approve individual housing proposals.

He's just wrong. That isn't democracy. It's not good planning.

It IS a big part of why we're in a housing crisis.

a picture of a man with the words " you are all over the place " ALT: a picture of a man with the words " you are all over the place "

Fry up with questions first. Asks if this is just implementing Bill 18, provincial legislation.

Staff: uhh no

Fry, after almost 8 years as a council, just repeatedly shows he doesn't understand how housing approvals and policy works.

City Hall abandons social housing development: Kitsilano Coalition Community members in Kitsilano say that the City of Vancouver has withdrawn to develop a social housing project at a Kitsilano site.

Here's an example of why this is important.

Public hearings were never meant to be heard for individual buildings, but for area-wide zoning changes. Using them for each individual building creates opportunities like this for wealthy neighbours to veto housing

vancouver.citynews.ca/2025/05/26/c...

Ok the debate and vote on these mild zoning changes is finally up!

This is a small step in the right direction: less pointless discretionary opportunities for NIMBYs to veto housing. All this does is make /some/ zoning consistent with existing policy and plans.

Let's see how this goes!

Sidney rejects extreme-weather shelter after community opposition The shelter would have run out of a community space in Wakefield Manor on Third Street.

I really don’t like to criticize my fellow local governments, but I am OUTRAGED at this decision.

This week, Sidney rejected its one and only Extreme Weather shelter, which was aimed at the dozen or so homeless SENIORS in the town.

All paid for by BC Housing.
www.timescolonist.com/local-news/s...

lol

...and sob

a man in a bowling alley says " yeah well that 's just like your opinion man . " ALT: a man in a bowling alley says " yeah well that 's just like your opinion man . "

I ain't got no time for defeatism on the most critical issue facing our city

Price isn't an innate, positive property. It's relational.

So how much? Well, if we only build one of these, pretty damned expensive, just like everything in this city--because we have a housing shortage.

But if we build 500? 1000? 5000? Then they'll be a helluva lot more affordable!

YIMBYs (like @ahvancouver.bsky.social) often say, "legalize apartments", or "end the apartment ban".

I don't want to speak for anyone else. But when I say that--things like this is what I'm talking about. No street, no neighbourhood, is too good for housing like this.

Housing is good!

The New Vancouver Special - 50' lot edition.

Accessible single stair flats on a 50x122 lot.
12 family size homes (or) 24 small units.

4.11 Dwelling Unit Density The Districts Schedules place a limit to the density of dwelling units permitted for each development site, based on site size and floor area. The intent is to encourage developments to include dwelling units large enough to accommodate families. The Dwelling Unit Density is calibrated for freehold rowhouses and townhouses – developments that typically require internal staircases, which may displace floor area that could otherwise be dedicated to living areas (e.g. bedrooms, living rooms). As such, an increase for projects above 1.2 FSR should only be considered for developments that provide single-storey dwelling units, where a majority of units are accessible by a shared elevator (i.e. 4-storey apartment buildings). This permission will nevertheless be dependent on design criteria set out in the Guidelines including: number of 2- and 3-bedroom units; dwelling unit size and liveability; opportunity for cross- ventilation; and provision of useable private open space.

What am I missing. This is from Vancouver's RM-9 zone: the density was "calibrated for freehold rowhouses and townhouses".

But...freehold rowhouses aren't allowed in the CoV! Why would they calibrate anything to something that isn't allowed? Were the planners just feeling particularly Kafkaesque??