about density

if Vancouver was all single-family homes, the pollution problem would be even more difficult to cope with.
The old fashioned cornerstores have all but disappeared, and people are used to commuting for everything by now.

In the UK..........

When I was living there some years ago, I had an opportunity to invest in a small house. I couldn't because there were strict guidelines for foreign ownership of residential property.

The same rules enabled my cousin and her husband to purchase a rather nice house and lot about 20 miles from central London for about $600,000 in 1990.

The rules for foreign ownership were relaxed and the cost of their house skyrocketed to about $1.3 million in just a few months.

Want to control housing prices, control foreign ownership of residential properties.

If we don't, we will soon have many generations of people who will never own a house and when they get power watch out.

City of Dreams

The author makes some pretty good points; as long as people see Vancouver as a desirable place to live prices will go up.

Funny you mention grow ops and meth labs. From what I've seen it's true, aside from those who are assisted by family money you would have had to jump into the marijuana grow op business in the 90s to be sitting on several homes now. And it seems that metro Vancouver home prices are so high that it's no longer economical to start a grow op in the city- most of the new ones have moved into the Fraser Valley or Interior. How's that for capitalism fighting crime?

Almost everyone I know- even professionals who has bought a decent place in Vancouver has had help from their parents. So I wonder why some of you think it is a birthright for your descendants to live in Vancouver? The affordable and white picket fence Vancouver you are longing for only exists in the fog of your minds. There's no way to restore that nostalgia even if you kick out immigrants and bar foreign investment.

Perhaps one solution is to improve Vancouver's public transit and highway systems. Compared to the world's major cities, Vancouver's system is poorly planned and doesn't make it convenient for anyone to live far away. In fact, the vast majority of people prefer to use their cars.

So Vancouver is becoming an unlivable city: possessing all the worst issues of a big city- increasing crime, boring people, unimaginative city managers, inconvenient access, no fun, with none of the benefits- great culture, vibrant society. We're torn by those who want to wholeheartedly live in a big city and others who long to return to the big-small town Vancouver once was.

Just look around you and see what has been wrought by our planners. If you want old time Vancouver move to Yellowknife.

Through the looking Glass

The whole notion of civic government making housing "affordable" is quaintly naive. Maybe a token 100 units evey election but never more than that. Municipalities are bought and paid for by developers: not overtly through dirty things like donations but rather through development cost charges. DCC's fund all the infrastructure upgrades that are needed not only for growth but also for renewal of aging systems. Existing property taxes don't pay for this stuff. Its a Ponzi game like most growth based economics. No civic government is going to bite the hand that feeds them by decreasing the profit margin of a developer. Affordbility will always mean a unit with fewer square feet - not a lower per square foot price.

Some good points, some not so good

Erik makes some good points here, namely that density is only one factor of many in the cost of housing.

However, there are some things I disagree or have questions with:

1. Erik says that construction costs are small compared to land costs, then he goes on to say that environmentally friendly buildings are adding significant costs to land. Which is it? Regardless, I don't want to see another leaky condo problem here. We should strive for the best construction possible so that buildings can last for the next hundred years or more.

2. I believe Erik when he says that wood frame construction is cheaper than steel/concrete. But, what is the limit of this? Is a 15 unit 3 floor walk-up cheaper per unit than a 30 story, 150 unit building? Seems to me that there is a point when concrete/steel becomes cheaper. (note, I am not arguing that we need 30 story buildings everywhere in the city, just that I want to see some evidence for what Erik is saying.) This is especially true if land is the prime motivator of price, not construction costs.

3. Part of what is driving up prices is desirability. Everyone and their uncle wants to move to Vancouver. How much of this price increase is coming from foreign investors seeking a safe country to invest their money in? I am not trying to be xenophobic here (I am not even a Canadian yet), but there is a big difference between a foreigner (or even an Albertan) who speculates in Vancouver real estate, vs a foreigner who moves here to start a new life.

4. I believe that the federal and provincial government have a part to play in ensuring there is proper low-income housing, but this will never be more than a small percentage of overall housing. It is up to the city to ensure that there are proper policies in place so that neighborhoods can be made more dense, but at the same time amenities and transit are added,

5. Erik rightly mentions that land cost is the primary factor in the cost of a home. But more important at this point is that Vancouver has been "internationally recognized as one of the world's most livable cities". This branding, true or not, is also a major cause of price increases.

Perhaps (and I say this with dripping sarcasm) we should remove the ALR restrictions, and turn Metro-Vancouver into a massive sprawl zone. This would increase pollution, decrease density and make this place a generally horrible place to live. But the benefit would be lower housing prices because no one would want to move here.

How dense are we?

The name "eco-density" is simply a marketing tool, designed to sell us on the concept of further growth (like "smart growth" for example). The fact that we need to be "sold" in the first place says an awful lot.

It is a way of enabling developers to continue to make high profits on less and less land, and has been demonstrated time and time again, in city after city, to have no link to housing affordability, other than perhaps driving prices up if developers concentrate on high end developments (as they naturally do because that is where the profit lies).

If in fact the prognostications about "Peak Oil" are even partially correct, then crowding even more people into a smaller and smaller area creates an even less sustainable situation with regard to food production and distribution, energy intensity, threats to biodiversity in areas where food is produced, and pollution and poverty in other countries which produce an increasing number of goods for us.

So, if population growth is creating problems for Vancouver, if housing is becoming unaffordable, if homelessness and poverty are on the rise (Canadian Policy Research Network, "Social Sustainability in Vancouver"), if offshore speculation is a problem, if our ecological footprint is already far too large (apparently by a factor of four or more), if our wonderful technology apparently is not saving us from all of these problems, then what do we do?

Well, let's crowd in even more people and create the opportunity for even more speculation. Sure, that will work.

As long as developers and speculators make their profits, that's really what counts, isn't it?

Luke Skywalker - Land Tax

Luke Skywalker said:

I looked up the "Program" - and it's just a bloody loan that is tied to someone (disabled or 55 yrs or older) having at least 25% equity in his or her home. In other words, call it what they want, it is a mortgage - something like one the homeowner worked his or her life to pay off so that he or she might have some bit of security.

There is no security for working-class people in Vancouver. They cannot and have not been able to afford to purchase RRSPs or make other investments that they can use in retirement. If they have been able to manage their dollars to purchase a home, all they can do is sell and downsize - or take out one of these Land Tax Deferment loans against a property that is now taxed at a value many times their purchase price. They have already paid for the street and utilities servicing the lot that their houses sit upon.

Suppose they sell and move to a small town in the Interior where land prices are cheaper. With the reduction of government services and hospitals in the small towns, they will not get the service from the government they have paid thier income taxes to afford. Politicians, and executives and wealthy stockholders of the large companies who have had their income taxes reduced the greatest amount (in dollars and cents) have retirement packages; and, they have been able to salt away capital in a vast number of ways so that this will never be a problem for them. How can they enjoy their lives knowing that their employees are just a step above being paupers until they retire? Then, upon retirement, that is what they become, paupers.

The paying down of the National and Provincial debt has been born on the backs of Canadian workers who (among other things) have been gouged for EI over-payments for decades. Now we learn that Harper says that the Feds have used the EI for other things and the workers will never get it back! Why couldn't they get it back if it meant the difference between keeping and losing a house they worked their lives to own? I have paid into EI/UI for the better part of 40 years and I have never made a claim. Although I am glad to have been working and happy to help unemployed people afford to live a respectable life and get re-trained, I have not enjoyed subsidizing the wealthy.

Poor people must spend their money.

Middle-income people must budget their money.

Wealthy people have the financial means for paying lawyers to write laws and accountants to use those laws to conserve what they have while they earn exorbinant amounts of cash.

Ever since the Mulroney/Reagan era, provincial and federaltax structures have rapidly continued to move in favour of the wealthy under the Conservatives and Liberals, hence, the housing crisis.

Hell, no...

Hell, no, they's just going to stack you up there in those cities like cord wood, and charge ya more for the pleasure of it. Cities, to the degree they are not now, are about to become systems of cattle chutes, poop and garbage, even more intensely.

And the coming economic depression, if it does indeed materialize, as even some "investor" and "educated" economist opinion on CNN are predicting this morning, sounding more and more like we "radical Marxists", then that downtown eastside there in Vancouver is going to become an even bigger, more widespread "new normal".

Capitalism, over the course of its normal behavioural cycle, at least about one a generation, always goes to far on the growth and expansion (greed) side until it finally collapses in on its own unsustainability, and goes too far on the Depression side. In this mode and its own desperation, driven by fear of the working class usually, it starts casting about for any tool option to hand-, which typically, when further technological change opportunities no longer exist, just happens to be war, with its own in built solutions to over population, production and consumption/destruction. War then becomes the the best available "Free Market" option.

Folks really do need to stop buying into all this "free market" poop. Walk away from the cities if you can, as fast as you can. Or stand and fight there.

Like Dorothy said in another thread, change ain't gonna be easy, no matter how it comes, whether it's more of their way for at least another generational cycle, if we don't nuke ourselves in the process first, or in another entirely different socio-economic model development direction.

Free Markets. They don't really exist anyway. It's all just so much hyperbole.

RIght on S.I.G

The tax deferral program IS a loan - at, right now, about 4% annually....in reality it's not much different from a reverse mortgage of the sort that is marketed ad nauseum on the television all the time....the C.H.I.P ads certainly indicate that someone is taking the bait in desperation.

There's an interesting article on the phenomenon in the United States in tomorrow's New York Times.

Anyone suggesting anyone else get into one of these marketing and financing scams isn't doing anyone a favour...however it isn't surprising it would be part of a Campbell/Sullivan media monitor's bag of tricks...the whole impact of which is to keep people quietly enduring the misery while the cash grab of the realty companies and their developer friends continues apace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02reverse.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

thanks, G West

Thanks for the support. You, much more frequently than I, can often be found at the Tyee exposing the sad truths and manipulations that the provincial and federal governments work so hard to bury. The media monitors must fret your being.

Article Clarifications

I have to say this forum is the reason why I love the Tyee....great comments all around.

As the author of the piece (and an affordability advocate) I think a few clarifications and general statements are in order given the great commentary.

> I should start by saying that this article is slightly out of context since it is a part of a larger series posted at the re:place website (www.regardingplace.com). I invite anyone interested to check out the Intro(http://regardingplace.com/?p=307) where I lay out a few ground rules....namely that the arguments are to generate discussion and look at a few holes in the EcoDensity argument.

> The intention of the article is less about "density" and affordability and more about "EcoDensity" and affordability. I think that this is an extremely important point. EcoDensity as a document and initiative do not seem to tackle the issue at all besides using obscure, general terms. Truly tackling affordability requires definitions and targets - i.e. what is considered "affordable" and what actions will get us there. EcoDensity (as a document and initiative) lacks all the above and then some.

> I think densification as a process is a natural precondition to economically developing cities. Successful cities attract people and this naturally leads to increased land values. It has been so since ancient times. Given the latter, the only means of making things "affordable" requires artificially making this valuable resource available to the wider public through huge subsidies and other means. The City of Vancouver is neither willing nor capable of doing this. Instead, it is simplistically saying that adding more units will bring down prices. How could this be so given that this act still relies on the market forces that have made them beyond reach to begin with? Density is one small part of a bigger equation. To be effective, they must hit many aspects.

> It often gets overlooked that densification as a process can happen in several ways and doesn't have to follow the demolish and rebuild method common to Vancouver. Locally, affordability and densification have tried to strike a balance through freestanding homes (illegally) being subdivided into multiple units. This forgoes the need to build new (and hence lowers costs) while adding more people. Beyond the fact that some of the conditions within these homes are horrible. I often wonder if there is a way to guide this pretty successful process towards better ends, instead of disregarding it? Just a thought. This is the type of interesting discussion I would have hoped that EcoDensity would have brought up.

Maybe next time, I suppose....

A few holes in the argument indeed.

As you've likely surmised from my posts, I question the notion that your last paragraph delineates a "pretty successful process," and the notion that "growth is inevitable." I'd be very happy to discuss that further.

Perhaps in the very short term some more affordable housing is created, but this just encourages even more growth, and any gains made in affordability are quickly negated. From the examples I've seen, this only encourages even more speculation, and drives up the cost of this "afforadable" housing, all the while cramming even more people into the area and moving further away from sustainability. Actions like this only enable our addiction to growth, and all the negative consequences from that.

One question I have is this: how far can this process go? In short, when all the available homes have been subdivided, then what?

Hmmmm, why the irrational fear of tall buildings?

gitpnts wrote:

Hmmmm, what about Hong Kong. People still like living there. It is not for everyone, but neither is a house in Aldergrove with a yard.

The real issue is our population growth and how we distribute resources....not how high are buildings are or square footage of apartments. If our population is going to increase, we need to densify, or give up farmland, or forests, or ocean front... etc.

Densification and The Day of Judgement

Good piece with good points, gitpnts.

Capitalism, of course, ever in need of expansion of sources of cheap labour, markets, and revenue growth, is an encourager/ enabler of population growth, rapidly coming to a place where the only direction left for development is up as well as out into ever more remote wildlands that abut cities. And it will, for so long as it can, along with the religious nutters, never question the endless population growth assumption, or deal with it. (To the nutters it hastens the Armageddon crisis, brings on the second coming and the Day of Judgement. That these fruitcakes still have the credibility they do does not say good things about the real level of intelligence of the species.)

Capitalism and population growth are both the interlinked, parallel and central problem driving the human footprint size on the planet, stuffing ever more bodies into its expanding boot, and all the growing sustainability issues that go with it.

And its nothing short of amazing how many so-called "green voices" are out there as well currently, seeking to act as enablers for this so-called "inevitable market process" masked as "densification".

Yea, inevitable alright. But only if one assumes that what is as socio-economic and political priorities can and do go on virtually forever, unchallenged. Nature and folks, the urban cordwood and the growing rural dispossessed however, are already in the process of questioning this assumption. And the economic downturn, maybe even classic Depression that is bearing down on us, is as likely as not to put sudden and new impetus behind this gathering "popular" storm.

I'm not questioning the value of a Day of Judgement concept, just the notion that it is likely to descend on a cloud from heaven. :-)

panic buying

You're absolutely right jimmy laroux. In fact the low, low interest rates were the catalyst for what has ended up being this now seemingly panic-driven buying. When you can get in to a place for eight or twelve thousand down (or even lower!) and then flip it in six months and make forty or fifty, then of course you get what we have now in Vancouver. And it's out of control. (of course, do'nt quote me on those figures-they may be way off by now)

The other thing which no one seems to ever talk about is immigration. We need it of course, for the expansion of the economy and whatnot, but the problem is the majority of immigrants choose to make their homes in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver. This means people who have lived here for awhile sell, make a sh**load on their place, and move to the okanagan or the interior, thus pushing the prices up in those regions too (even though sawmills and pulpmills in those places are closing down every other week).

And here's the thing: yes, there are a lot of people coming here who have very little and who are just starting out with a lot less than you and i. however, there are also a very significant number of incredibly wealthy foreigners who come here, buy a place, and either rent it out to their friends or let their kids live in it while they go to university. Now i have to ask, is this really good for Canada? For metro vancouver? I can't really say if it is or it isn't but i'd like to know what others think. all i know is this whole growth of un-affordability sure makes me frustrated and sad.

I love living here, but i can see the time coming when i will be forced out. I'm just a lowly renter and so though i have a fantastic set up at the moment, i see a tremendous increase in the value of property all around me. It firghtens me when i think of how much the houses next to my apartment building are selling for. It makes me think that it won't be long before this building i'm in is sold and re-developed into condo's. When that happens i'm afraid i simply will not be able to afford to live here anymore.

What metro Vancouver needs is more apartments!! Not condo's or single family homes, but rental apartment buildings! IMO encouraging developers to build more rental apartment buildings will go very far in helping to stabilize affordability in the region.

jimmy-laroux: Quote:If by

jimmy-laroux:

Of course BC's population grew (it even grew during the depression of the early 1980's) ... nevertheless, from personal experience, some of my relations moved eastward for better economic opportunities during the '90's and many have moved back over the past five years... but I digress...

The current demand for fee-simple and strata housing, coupled by the lowest occupancy rates for rental housing that I have ever seen, shows a different demand picture (as opposed to the '90's), which is certainly somewhat attributable to above-average population growth as well as consumer confidence levels.

Yep, the prime rate on January 16, 2002 was 3.75% and that certainly had an effect upon demand on housing and, accordingly, housing prices.

But, again, there's a caveat to that... which is the "Consumer Confidence Level".

For example, there was a housing boom in Metro Vancouver from '86 to '90 and the prime rate was much higher... dipping to its lowest point at 8.75% on March 13, 1987.

The prime rate was 6% on May 25, 2006 and again the same, over 1 1/2 years later, on December 5, 2007.

However, the prime rate was also 6% ten years earlier on December 15, 1997, 5.25% on October 2, 1997, decreasing to a low point of 4.75% on November 12, 1996.

Certainly no rising housing prices in the 1990's were attributable to these low interest rates! Why? Again... low consumer confidence levels.

You can check out these prime interest rates for yourself here:

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/ref/cibcHistoricalPrime.pdf

Another big picture that most people fail to foresee is the fact that the first wave of baby boomers will hit the age of 65 in 2010 (remember that ~20 year boomer period?).

The previous migration of retirees from back east to BC, particularly from Ontario and the Prairies, is nothing new.

Nevertheless, after 2010, I'd wager that boomer migration will turn into a swell toward the Okanagan, Vancouver Island, and of course the Lower Mainland.

Such migration will further put upward pressure upon housing prices (forget about the health care system).

SharingisGoodQuote:I looked

SharingisGood

Firstly, the poster ME2 made it clear that he was unhappy that his uncle lived in his home for 90 years (inheriting same in 1950), living in same for another 49 years, until 1999 and was forced out due to exorbitant property taxes.

It certainly sounded like a case of "asset rich", "cash poor" and that he was accordingly unable to afford his property taxes.

That's the reason behind the "Property Tax Deferment Program", which allows those seniors who have seen their home, purchased decades ago at marginal prices, then paid off their mortgage, and then seen the value of their home escalate and cannot afford their annual property taxes.

And here we are talking about a Point Grey view lot, likely worth in excess of $1 million in 1999.

Without that program, these seniors would be forced to move out of their own home.

Heck, even my grandpa subscribes to that program.

The only losers under that program are the beneficiaries of the subsequent estate, who are still likely to inherit a bundle financially.

To Luke S

Well Luke S, my uncle's house at no time was ever valued at "marginal prices", but had a value consistent with values in his neighbourhood, and in fact much the same as most all values West of Granville, from the beach South.

My point, and his, was that throughout the years the taxes paid on that property had long ago paid off the bonds floated to provide the various amenities necessary to service the property, along with paying his share of the City's administration costs.

He felt, and rightly so, that the City used increased tax revenues to finance expansion, since increased tax revenue (far beyond inflation) as a result of higher property values, should have resulted in a lower tax rate to yield the required administration costs, and not been used to provide a bonanza for business elites.

What I neglected to say is that - as has been amply pointed out in other postings here - all of a sudden property values zoomed up, and with them inflated taxes, becoming particularly evident by the Eighties.

As a consequence, and along with other unforeseen money problems, the monies he had set aside to finance his old age were insufficient to do so. His bitch was that without the added tax burden he could have made it, and that he saw the tax increases as being due to the city financing expansion purely to profit the developers, as has also been pointed out here.

The moral is that he thought, as do I, Luke, that the function of a city or town is to provide a good living space for people to have their homes (please note the bolding, Luke), not to provide a favourable economic climate for developers.

The point is ME2

Luke Skywalker isn't interested in debate - he's here to spout the party line...best course is to simply ignore him - one day he may wake up to the fact that he doesn't really understand the ethical, moral and economic compromises one has to make to accept the Campbell/Sullivan "government" version of things.

The sad part is that the kinds of things which have happened in Vancouver - and which can't be divorced from the other side of the coin which includes 'developers' and slum lords 'flipping' fleabag hotels every few months or so – have already started to happen in other urban centres in this province.

I heard the Opposition Leader on the radio last week talking about a bill of rights for seniors - many of the stories told by callers who described where these people (and the rest of us eventually) end up were horrific.

Giving over the future of the city to developers and neo-con 'Liberals' has been an attenuated disaster and unless people start standing up to the lies of flacks like Campbell and Luke Skywalker it is going to get very nasty before much longer.

The US economy is going into the tank and Canada's won't be far behind.

I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of reposting (all bolded) part of your last para...with a slight addition.

...(T)he function of a city, town or country is to provide a good living space for all its people to have a decent home not to provide a favourable economic climate for developers.

Thank you.

Densification: a hit and myth approach.

Moat writes

The real issue is our population growth and how we distribute resources....not how high are buildings are or square footage of apartments. If our population is going to increase, we need to densify, or give up farmland, or forests, or ocean front... etc.

Apparently, there are billions of people on this planet who don't want to live in Hong Kong, or Vancouver for that matter, or they would be beating on the door. The data for developed countries show that, given the chance, people move to suburban areas with less traffic, less pollution, less crowding and so on, even if it means a commute to work. Sprawl is often born as a reaction to the poor conditions in many cities, yet we want to force more people to live in those conditions? In the long term, will that be a good thing? Whether it's peak oil, peak soil, the collapse of fish and other food stocks, lack of clean water, air pollution, or what-have-you, Liebig's Law of the Minimum has ample opportunities in large cities.

And I have the same question for you. Densifying hasn't ultimately saved farmland or greenspace in areas where it has been a long term practice, it only delays things a bit, and what happens after we densify? There is no infinite potential to densify, so what comes next? Your "If" is the one I take to task, and I don't assume that it is inevitable (and am not assuming that you do), but hope for the sake of this poor planet that it is not.

Densification is the current chant of the smart growthists. I don't belong to that cult.

I ran across this interesting analysis of population and economic growth myths. It's worth thinking about.

Canis

In the end, it's all about control, isn't it? Cattle in a pen are competely dependant on the "captors" for all that you've mentioned above. The only "proper" city would be one in which the residents may have the option of generating their own energy, growing their own food, etc., and being able to trade with their neighbours.

And the argument that we are free to leave anytime is bogus..........

People don't want to come to Vancouver? Are you sure?

gitpnts wrote:

You are kidding here? People are beating down the door to come here. That is why we have immigration laws to make it difficult to get into this country. I think sometimes we forget how privileged we are as Canadians to be able to travel around the world.

So your solution is simply to take out that farmland or forest now? Because densification is only a quick fix? Wow.

Liebig's Law of the Minimum does not really apply to us at the moment because at present, we are wealthy enough to purchase any inputs we need. That is why you can buy a banana in a Superstore in Whitehorse for almost or the same price as one down here. But back to the main point...

Drive through Surrey next week. Go look at the massive single family homes under construction on what was once farmland or bush. Look at how all the trees are removed and the land paved over.

Then come back and tell me that this is better alternative to densification in "hub" areas.

And you have got to be

And you have got to be kidding too, right? Nowhere have I claimed that sprawl is a better alternative, and I think you need to read a bit more carefully before you comment.

If the ecological footprint of Canadians is 4 or 5 times that of other lesser "developed" countries and we keep allowing more immigration, then we are magnifying the ecological impact of those people considerably.

Indeed, when you consider that the ecological footprint of a Canadian is apparently about 6 gha, of which about 1 gha is apparently required for food production alone, then each person added to a city requires that we increase the amount of available farmland significantly, not just preserve what we have. Considering that the average suburban building lot size has fallen to about .2 acres, or about .08 hectares, building on that lot has a minimal impact compared with the impact of adding that person in either an urban or a suburban environment. Only roughly 5% of Canada's land is arable, some of the greatest urban densities occur right on top of some of that land already, and we are rapidly losing the rest regardless of how dense we are about building.

As for the Canadian ability to consume whatever we want, whenever we want, peak oil seems poised to take care of that for us.

RickW...

No doubt controlling people is much what it is all about. I agree. In order to carry through their so-called free market needs in a social environment that is "secure" for the investments of the wealthy, as continues to allow them to flourish in their endless wealth share generation, and that other needs and agendas should not be allowed to impose themselves over-top of theirs, control is certainly a critical ingredient. It is built into everything, even the pen and cattle chute design and environment of emerging large cities.

They do not wish conditions that create discomfort for "the masses" and cause them to become restive, of course, but history also teaches them that restive masses are an inevitable by product of their free market processes, driven by their greed demands upon it. So they ever poll, create strong police and other security forces in preparation for it.

And let's face it, from the time of slavery through feudalism and still within capitalism, the ruling class has ruled for a long time, and understands the nature of weilding power better than the working class, who simply understand its consequences, by and large. Which has shaped this latter behaviour pretty much, frankly.

But the species, all species, I think, have finally arrived at a place where nature and future human generations both are going to need just about the polar opposite of these ruling classes: reduced population, and a reduced exploitation imprint upon the resources of the land, and all the kinds of innovations which you suggest in your piece above here, and as a benefit of all this, more human livable spaces, urban and rural, and better husbanding of the resources of the land.

Which, with human populations at sustainable levels, need not mean that we cannot have some "luxury" in the lives of "the people". :-) It's a matter of OUR Intelligent Design of the future.

For example, I think, it is not so much fossil fuels that is a problem, at appropriate population levels, though other alternatives might be better, it is just that with our current and expanding footprint size, the massive volumes of it exceeds nature's capacity to process it or otherwise deal with it. (ditto simple urban garbage.)

Correction...

Should read, "...more humane livable spaces."

feudal or futile?

Canis Latrans comments

But the species, all species, I think, have finally arrived at a place where nature and future human generations both are going to need just about the polar opposite of these ruling classes

Good points.

Some argue that we still have a modified feudal system here. Although we may think that we temporarily "own" a piece of land, or part of a condo complex, the banks and the developers (among others) seem to have the ultimate control in the longer term.

Property taxes could be viewed as our tithe (or part of it) for the privilege of "owning" this land.

Alternatively, the phrase "wage slave" seems to be more and more applicable with the number of low-paying, just-above-the-official-poverty-level jobs, so perhaps we have the best of both worlds here -- feudalism and slavery.

I should have added what is

I should have added what is bolded below.

"As for the Canadian ability to consume whatever we want, whenever we want, that ability is not shared by a huge portion of our population, so I have to assume that you are not talking about our homeless, our working poor, our non-working poor, and the increasingly large number of low-middle income earners. Regardless, peak oil seems poised to take care of that for us.

Growth and Density

interesting discussion....I'm going to try to guide this discussion back in a direction that I was finding provocative...

It seems to me that the idea that growth is necessary for the success of cities forms the fundamental basis for this densification initiative. I explain the limits of this perspective in one of the other articles I I wrote looking at EcoDensity and the environment (http://regardingplace.com/?p=306).

If we assume that this is not a viable option - since uncontrolled growth and densification ultimately brings our cities further beyond the carrying capacity of the local environment - what alternative(s) exist to this economic growth principle of development?

Also, I find it an interesting coincidence that this EcoDensity initiative comes at a time when the City has effectively built out the parts that offer the paths of least resistance (derelict areas, old industrial hotspots, etc.). I imagine that those hungry developers are putting the pressure for the City to find new locations. Thoughts?

ev writes "What

ev writes

"What alternative(s) exist to this economic growth principle of development?"

That's a question I once asked of Dr. Rees, who helped to develop the idea of the ecological footprint. His comments (in another discussion here) are that we need to wind down our current economy, get away from this growthist model, significantly reduce consumption (to the level of many Third World countries) and achieve what is called a steady-state economy, or our house-of-cards economy will simply collapse (perhaps taking our civilization and planet with it). Ronald Wright, Herman Daly, Richard Heinberg and many, many others have made similar observations.

Perhaps this is the only alternative, if the worst-case scenarios are anywhere near correct. The problem is that growthism is so ingrained in our society that we may simply be unable to make the necessary changes, and so follow the same path as many past civilizations.

I hope I'm wrong about much of this, but the evidence seems to be increasingly clear.

There is one very quick and easily-implemented way to halt population growth in Vancouver immediately. Any thinking person can see it. The problem is reaching the critical mass required for that social change, and that may be an insurmountable problem.

At this point, to me at least, talking about where growth should occur seems much like the fiddling of a certain Roman emperor (or lyre-playing, as the fiddle hadn't yet been invented), or debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

to the limits, or comfortable margin of error?

ev, I note your comment in that article

I would argue that, if we are at the point where we have a "delicate balance," then we have already gone too far. Leaving no environmental margin of error is pretty typical of growthist philosophy. "Let's push things to the limits" is not a good survival strategy, in my opinion.

gitpnts wrote: Quote:And

gitpnts wrote:

I stand by my comment. You made a generalization about billions of people not wanting to live in Vancouver, and I believe that this is untrue or very simplistic at best. You also state that given a chance, people move to suburban areas. This is also a simplistic statement as people bid on homes over a million bucks in Vancouver. Basic “push” and “pull” for cities are different from country to country, city to city.

I agree with your statement. However, we as Canadians control a huge amount of wealth and resources. Are we willing to share it? Do we lock our borders while others starve? We got some tough questions to answer and some sacrifices to make as we look at reducing our ecological footprint. Personally, I know that I have not done enough. But at least we, as posters here, generally recognize that we do have a problem. How to solve it is the issue.

Many, many good points 1...

Many excellent points and a good discussion going on in this thread.

I find myself agreeing with much of this I've quoted above. Though I'm less certain that we need to go fully back to the level of some "Third World" nations, hopefully not, but there is no doubt, I think, that the endless and escalating growth dynamic built into capitalism has over-reached its sustainability limits. So while I would certainly not claim to entirely know the social and economic model that is required from here, it is clear that the general direction line of development has to begin in measures that increasingly curtail and lead away from further unchecked dubiously Free Market anyway, capitalism.

And if the needed development does point in the direction of what was described as a "...a steady-state economy.", which I agree with actually, then the internal peace and good order requirement of that economy also points to a requirement that it be, at least, a more "egalitarian" arrangement as well-, such as all sharply class societies to here have not been able or inclined to deliver.

Population levels, however, are already too great nearly everywhere in my view, and will complicate attempts to move in any alternative direction to the "growthist" model of capitalism. Though it needs to be noted that North America, and a number of other developed states in Europe, Russia, including Japan if I remember the stats correctly, left to their own devices without immigration, actually already have declining birth rates and population levels. So social modernity certainly, seems to want to move in that direction, more or less of its own accord.

Continued Next Post...

Many, many good points 2...

Continued from previous post...

The fly in the ointment, driven again by the demands of the capitalist market, countering that declining birth rate tendency and continuing to drive it in the other direction is, of course, the socially thorny issue of relatively large scale immigration. This immigration dynamic is the issue about which movements for change, as we move into the future, are going to have to be relatively hard nosed, I suspect-, while being accepting and non-racist of all immigrant populations that are entirely legally and of the best intentions here already.

But if it is true, as I indeed agree that it is, that overall human and our own national development is now in a place where there needs to be a major change in direction from all our heretofore existing assumptions, then these kinds of difficult issues are going to have to be confronted and dealt with as well, as much as that of the underpinning capitalist, never-ending "growthism" model.

Canis Latrans

Canis Latrans comments

Although there are many exceptions to the idea of demographic transition, it does hold true in some cases. And yet we seem to have all levels of government, and much of the media, promoting immigration, incentives to increase fertility rates, and generally promoting the idea that population decline and reduction of economic activity are somehow negative and undesirable things. The rationalizations include having affordable labor (read "slave wages"), supporting an aging society (read "slave labor"), and all sorts of other reasons.

I see a disconnect here between what we seem to want, and what we hear and are told by politicians and in the media.

Moat writes Quote:I stand

Moat writes

Yes, every city is the best in the world, it's "world class," and everyone wants to move to every city in the world -- an interesting conceit, puffed up with pride. You might consider how much of the activity is actually due to international speculation in a relatively cheap market. The highest prices in Canada are nowhere near the highest prices in the world.

So, to get away from generalizations, I moved away from Vancouver years ago. Although I am forced to visit occasionally, I do not want to be sentenced to live in Vancouver ever again, my wife and children feel the same way, and the two friends I just polled said exactly the same thing. That's not billions, but it's a start, and I suspect that we're not alone.

And, again to get away from generalizations, the same group mentioned above prefers a rural life with a stable population, where developers and politicians are not promoting eco-density as a futile solution to any particular problem. Unfortunately, what is happening in Vancouver is having an impact on us, and driving down our quality of life. So, stop it!

It's only a free market if you're wealthy

Canis Latrans writes

"dubiously Free Market anyway, capitalism"

You are hinting at one of the issues here. We are a long way from Adam Smith's vision of a free market economy (not that I am promoting that vision). Indeed, what is happening all over this country and in much of the rest of the world seems to indicate that we actually have a dictatorship of the developers and the wealthy.

Smith's "invisible hand" of the marketplace has become an almost visible backhand for the down and out in our society. If it begins to erode the middle class significantly (and that has already started), THEN you will see revolution.

Canis

The Boleshevik Revolution comes to mind, of control that goes past the point you allude to. The Tsar and the nobles squeezed far too much. But all the revolution did was spawn another group of "nobles", and though it took some 80 years, it too fell apart.

An interesting take on the environment's "ability" to absorb the garbage we spew:
http://www.worldwithoutus.com/

Thanks!

I'm glad that the Tyee closes these discussions after 5 days. Any longer, and things often just seem to degenerate into repetition, name-calling, and the like.

As it is, I have really enjoyed the discussion here (yes, even you too, Moat), and thanks very much to ev for initiating it, but it's time for me to move on.

See you all soon, and may sanity prevail.

gitpnts (Growth is the problem, not the solution)

The danger...

Entirely correct. The greatest risk, I think, of any significant movement for change within society, is precisely what happened to the Bolshevik Revolution-, that it will be commandeered by "other", what become themselves, separate class interests. But when you study Lenin's theory of "the vanguard" party, which the Communist Party was set up to be, there is contained within that very "vanguard" concept, the almost certain likelihood of it evolving into the creation of a new elitist ruling class, that develops it own interest set, separate and apart from the rest of society. Which is why the very "vanguard" concept, in my view, which all political "parties" tend to see themselves as, needs to be critically examined and, again in my view, rejected.

And it is a very great problem, perhaps even somewhat inevitable, which Fait Lux has addressed as well in the past, of that alpha tendency within species, including humans, to rise to the top and assert itself and its interest over all others in society, and the more timid beta strata to submit. It has perhaps, along with greed economics, been the greatest underlying tendency for the creation and recreation of classes, especially a ruling class within society.

What it will take to curtail, even crush this tendency, I am not entirely certain, other than the steady improved democratization of society, but especially the economy, its strategic directorship and management, and economic power generally, which is the real foundation of political power, in my view. Economics and those who hold power there are the real rulers of society. It's this reality that makes the economy's democratization so fundamentally critical to all further change, such as we have been discussing here.

Me too..

Great discussion, and yes, thanks Ev. But it is time for me to bow out as well, for now. I am finally exhausted. :-)

Ev has introduced, I think, the really great discussion that needs to take place in our time, across the whole of our society.

Altruism

Gtpnts Sums up the dilemma well.

Leaving no environmental margin of error is pretty typical of growthist philosophy. "Let's push things to the limits" is not a good survival strategy, in my opinion.

However, as Ronald Wright demonstrated, the syndrome has been around as long as humans have gathered together, and as ev noted, we seem unable "to strike the delicate balance" (except when limited by lack of access to technology).

That balance is hard, if not impossible, to strike when human reasoning, conditioned by self-interest, blurs distinctions, as J A Livingston illustrated in his discussion of "Wise Use".

Similarly, Peter A Larkin addressed in 1977 our failure - again a result of our conditioning by self-interest - to grasp what is a "harvestable surplus" in the fisheries. that failure, despite plenty of warning, has led to a 90% reduction of biomass in the world's fisheries.

And so it thus continues to evolve re our use of resources, and no "peak oil" scares, no amount of taxation or rationing or any other scheme we can dream up will cause us to change direction. It's "We'll run er til she breaks, boys".

There IS a solution, and though it yields a result that's in our self-interest, its implementation requires denial of self-interest as a goal.

It's called Deep Ecology, and for most people it's pretty airy-fairy stuff, since it requires a level of altruism we've seldom exhibited, except perhaps in times of War.

But then, isn't altruism what we Lefties see as necessary for our collective well-being? Isn't that why the Neocons sneer at us?

Ok, but back to your question, EV

Oh, come on now, just when things were getting heated :). Thanks for the sparring, gitpnts.

It has been a good discussion, and I am pleasantly surprised that we have not yet degenerated into a debate of light rail vs. Skytrain technology.

I often wonder why the City of Burnaby allowed the development the relatively large tracts of land between the Burnette River, the freeway, Burnaby Lake, and Robert Burnaby Park. As well, some development in other areas of Burnaby is puzzling. Same with the land at UBC. At this point, getting rid of green space and brush is a bad move, unless new greenspace is created elsewhere.

We can do a lot of creative things if we use our space wisely.

We can do a lot of creative things..

.. if we use our space wisely.

As Moat says, we could. Mayor Sullivan and the City could commission some of our architects to design project ideas that would increase density without making radical changes to the city, ie. not skyscrapers. The resulting ideas could then be submitted using the media and inviting comments.

Up to now Sullivan's Eco-Density has come across in a non-specific and nebulous fashion that has caused much negative sentiment. Some creative ideas from experts might advance the debate in practical ways.

It's been done before for single-family houses, it could be done now with the mandate that density without overcrowding is paramount.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses

One Last Kick at the Can.....

Canis:

With humans though, is it nature or nurture? Virtually ALL of the institutions created throughout history have been used to tell people to submit. What if these bureacracies instead told people to assert themselves?

creative things

I think we could make Vancouver more sustainable by allowing the keeping of a couple of chickens or a goat to those with backyards... and by removing all on-street parking to allow traffic to flow more quickly.

You won't find these common-sense solutions on any party's platform.

on-street parking

Removing on-street parking does get the traffic flowing better Stump but if there's any retail it gets killed. You end up with desolate streets and neighbourhoods and only big-box and mall shopping.

adjustments are necessary

My comment was directed more towards residential streets. Not my job or the city's to subsidize storage for car owners. Should've made that clearer.

As to retail businesses, they might find the addt'l bus, and bike traffic advantageous. Did you think I was talking about reclaiming a lane for fatasses to get the SUV home faster? As if. I only look for effective and sustainable transportation solutions.

Quote:With humans though, is

The million dollar question, to which we would love to know the answer. Eh?

I suspect both are are at work, with the "nature" part of the equation, as you suggest, in the very least, playing a greater or lesser role dependent upon the quality and quantity of "nurturing".

And though it is the assumption I certainly act on, I'm really just guessing. Though I have a kind of brother-in-law by marriage on the wife's side, whose nagging voice I can hear now, reminding me that, like it is the interplay of fear and greed in the capitalist marketplace that drives much of its collective behaviours, it is the (Pavlov studied) lived experiences of pleasure and pain, or reward and punishment stimuli that shape much of even our collective human behaviours.

For example: The "pain" of the 1930s Great Depression that created a powerful Labour and Communist/Socialist movement, even in this country, was finally only really overcome by the "pleasure" experiences of increased incomes and other social security rewards that flowed from the Great Postwar Prosperity Period that existed in this country and throughout much of the world, up until the late 70s, early 80s.

Since the "relatively" serious "Free" Market collapse/decline of the 80s, which has never been fully recovered from, it would appear that we have been moving into a new and increasing "pain" period of social and economic development-, suddenly beginning to reshape human collective consciousness again, back in the direction of something beginning to resemble that earlier 1930s social consciousness. Though each period is never exactly repeated, of course, and while there is likely to be much that is the same, certainly there is much that is destined to be different also. ("Green" consciousness, for example, even though there was a kind of natural order collapse also going on then, in the "dustbowl" conditions of the prairie farmlands of the 30s, was certainly not then even an issue, certainly in the mass mindset. Today it is a major driver, because the increasing evidence of "collapse" going on within nature is also an new and inescapable pain stimuli, at the pumps and in the fisheries etc.)

How much this will all succeed in overcoming especially "Beta" human natures, we are yet to fully discover, I suspect. B-D lol

Rental stock

I also was under the impression that developers could not eliminate rental units without replacing them elsewhere in the city, but apparently not. I live in a lovely old 10-unit apartment building in Kitsilano. It is slated for demolition, to be replaced by a 5-unit condominium. This is a sad case of diminishing density (unless families with children buy the new 1600 sq. ft. condos) coupled with skyrocketing prices.

A firefighter lives in my building, will he be able to afford to stay in Vancouver? What if all our emergency workers are living across bridges and tunnels when the earthquake hits?

Thanks from ev

Hi All,

Thanks to everybody for the great discussion and comments. Really insightful. I wanted to stay computer-side all day yesterday and banter back and forth...but things had to get done. Nonetheless, you've given me a lot to think about.

I'll say one thing about the "creativity" discussion, though (if anybody is still listening). I think using space wisely and creative is key. However, I think that this also requires a keen sense of a particular locality.

Historically, large-scale changes couldn't happen quickly and decision-makers lived in the neighbourhoods that they were changing. This gave people a better understanding of the opportunities and constraints of their neighbourhoods - transforming little nooks and crannies into beautiful space.

Done piecemeal by several individuals across the city, this process created beautiful urban landscapes. I would argue that this should be something EcoDensity has to address. Densifying through intelligent incremental change.

Unfortunately the centralized process we currently have doesn't make this process easy (or possible for that matter) with people living several kilometers away, making decisions about neighbourhoods that they rarely visit.

I find this a bizarre situation....

waterlily

Apparently, the forces at work to ensure only the extremely well-to-do can live in the city, are not affected by such mundanities as earthquakes, floods, fires, and other mayhem.................

The present path leads nowhere.

Well, once again nobody bit on the troll I occasionally dangle on these threads, namely the issue of Deep Ecology.

That's sad, since the multitudinous problems we face today are ultimately due to our purely anthropocentric overview upon our world, and the seemingly unchallengeable reasoning that we are indeed the "lords of creation", given our powerful technologies.

In the end, however, we have always run into trouble when the time arrives when we ask our world to provide, and find it has no more to give. The next time this happens it will be global, not merely local.

Our religions conveniently sidestep this reality with the dictum "God Will Provide", and today they tell us improved technology will exhibit God's will, saving us all.

This thread has examined at some length purely human centered solutions which will at best be band-aids and at worst will not stop the malaise from spreading.

Its long past time we started looking at these problems from a perspective other than pure self-interest and instead look at our obligations to other creatures and the world we all must live in.

Pretext

Hi:

I see ecodensity as a pretext to allow developers still further free rein throughout the city. If anyone knows of any "affordable" homes that have been built, let me know! Further, I have no idea who is buying all the homes they keep building - to me, there is just not the number of people in Vancouver equal to the number of homes they keep building! Where do they come from , the people who keep buying them? Are they bred in underground caves during the night?

Also, from a developer's point of view, more built is better: they rationalize that more built will lower the price by the law of supply and demand, but so far, that has certainly not materialized.

It seems to me that this development boom arrived concurrently or after Gordon Campbell's election as Premier: what did he do that so allowed such rampant development? To me, this is a "gold-rush" style of economy, and not sustainable. As well, as others have said, it is pricing the average person out of the market, and out of the city. It enrages me, a person who was born here and grew up here.

Me too, ME2

I'm sure my name gives it away, but in case it doesn't, I couldn't agree more, ME2.

Sadly, our laws have been being written to protect the rights of the selfish individual, not the needs of society. The Charter (though very laudible in many ways) and the CRTC have allowed Canadians to move too far in the American direction. Legislators (and lawyers writing case law) selfishly manipulate Charter rights - after all, it is their right! Both, Liberals and Conservatives, have been steadfastly working to give Canadians full-scale American capitalism. Our legislators have even gone so far as to give the fabricated individuals, corporations, more rights and fewer restraints than flesh and blood people. Corporate tax breaks and allowable write-offs far exceed those of a real person. Ironically, non-competitive people, given to sharing and caring about others, are often ground asunder as the ultimate goal of capitalism is the digging of a continually greater abyss between the very few haves and the many have-nots.

The Many are returning to becoming indentured servants, wage slaves and share-croppers - peasants all. The pain of "densification" is just another symptom of the malaise brought on by self-interest being given preference over the needs of society and the planet as a whole. The wealthy have the means to make sure that their self-interest is given preference over the Many's self-interest. The wealthy can make deals with law-makers who are, themselves, wealthy or looking to become one of the few weathy. The Liberals and Conservatives have been good at choosing and promoting legislators who are good at protecting and promoting selfishness.

American-style "individualist society" (an oxymoron)is a greed machine that is tended by law-makers and corporate main stream media. As the Earth is finite, the capitalist system will ultimately, paradoxically, consume itself when the greediest of the greedy have nothing left but each other to consume. Then, the rights of the Many will become even more meaningless: the great mass of people will have absolutely no ownership nor right to anything. The ownership of resources (including water) and means of production will be in the hands of the very few.

Will Ecodensity make our

Will Ecodensity make our communities more liveable? Not likely. More people equals more cars, more congestion, more demand on services, and a faster deterioration of infrastructure. More homeless people.

Vancouver has become much less liveable and less enjoyable as the population booms. And this will only get worse.

If we want to reduce homelessness, have places our kids can afford, etc., then we have to deal with at the real drivers behind the boom in costs.

They can be summed up in two words: money and people.

Capital goes where the profits are more attractive. International (and Canadian) capital has poured into the Vancouver market because there is money to be made. This drives up prices. But the key driver that attracts capital in the first place is: people wanting to move to Vancouver. If Vancouver wasn’t growing, we’d have a sane real estate market.

It’s an economics 101 argument. Lower demand, lower prices. We can address this in two ways. Severe restrictions on foreign capital investment in housing and land. (difficult). Restrict immigration, or make sure new citizens don’t end up in the three big cities. (also difficult but the one thing we can control). We obviously can’t control Canadian movement to Vancouver.

Let me state that I am not opposed to immigration. I have relatives who are immigrants from South Asia, Japan, Austria and Lebanon. They are great people who contribute a lot to our country.

The issue is do we want the Vancouver population to grow, Or the Canadian population grow in just a few cities. The costs to all of us are high, and rarely measured.

If we want more affordable housing in Vancouver, cut the immigration rate by 80% and watch investment capital flee and the demand for housing (and prices) drop significantly.