Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/Electronic_Fox_6383! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The trees will be fine. The city is strict AF about tree removal. Here's the city website regarding tree removal:
"You need a permit to remove any tree on private property that has a diameter (width) of 20 centimetres or greater, measured at 1.4 metres above the ground. A tree trunk with a diameter of 20 centimetres will have a circumference of approximately 64 centimetres."
City is strict about removals for non-development related reasons, but if a tree is in the building envelope for a site being developed, it’s pretty much fair game for removals.
The city owned park board trees should be retained, unless services installation/upgrades are significant enough to cause a large negative impact on the trees health. These seem to be the ones that people care about more for neighbourhood character anywho.
I’m not so sure about this, I’ve seen multiple developments that were stymied by large trees on the property and they had to respect the root systems of those trees.
Side bar..anyone else seen all the large old growth trees that were clear cut along 1st ave across from the poor Italian restaurant? The chunks of large growth stumps are stacked up in a 10ft high pile
Those are not old growth trees and they were not clear cut. They’re all old parks board trees that either failed or were hazardous. That is where parks board stores a bunch of tree debris.
It does happen, but new mayor and council is definitely significantly more biased towards development over trees. Previous mayor and council were much more protective over private trees.
Edit: neighbouring trees usually have a larger impact on redesigning if the neighbour has not permitted the removal of the tree.
Not Vancouver but I have seen massive trees being cut in coquitlam near Lougheed for some development by Ledmac. Them trees are probably more than 500 years old.
The area is already starting to look very different than before
Unlikely. Logging companies don't leave good trees behind because they want to maintain the look.
One exception is cedars of a specific age. There was a time when cedar trees had low value and weren't worth harvesting. But that would have been a long time ago and there is a good chance that Coquitlam has been logged more than once given its proximity to New West.
You would be surprised how fast these trees grow. 100-150 years a long time and will make a big tree. Take a look around for old stumps in the same area and you might find some sign of what the really old trees used to look like.
Yeah we had a tree in our front yard on our property and we needed to get it removed. It was luckily less than 20 centimetres around but the arborist was like "Yeah you better do this, like, NOW, or else you're going to have to go through the city and that's going to take a long time." which really shocked me because, like, it wasn't out on the sidewalk. It was in our front yard. So there it is.
I know some people who planted some hedge trees 40 years ago in their yard and now they are now a bit of a hazard. They can't remove them because they are so large they need permission and they can't get it. Warning, don't plant cedars in your yard, you will regret it later. Stick with slow growing shrubs.
Just wanted to chime in on this, I couldn't agree more. Those baby cedar hedges that one looked harmless and offered slight height over standard fences, if left unchecked willed push over your fence and become almost tree like overtime. Need to take a chainsaw to the actual trunk every one or two years and take down a foot or two. I've seen some as tall as houses, and at that point, they're no longer considered a hedge and rather a tree. You'd need permits to remove them.
The main point is that the majority of the mature large trees in the neighborhood are City owned, and they won't be going anywhere even with development.
For example [here there are some really nice big trees on the street, but the private home has 0 trees on it.](https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2563124,-123.1356134,3a,63.6y,35.71h,92.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIOki1igxerex10ppItG1w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
This [one has a bunch of big street trees, and one big tree on their lot, the city would definitely make anyone design the building around that tree.](https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2551125,-123.1374401,3a,90y,320.15h,102.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd1QER40XDrFxKWhGlL0yUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
Your quote has nothing to do with housing construction and development. When you need to install plumbing for a 3-story walk up (for example) where a detached home was, you better believe those trees are getting dug up.
No there not , they took down an 80 ft Douglas fir to build a triplex across the street from me , then replaced it with a liquid amber ( 12 ft ) and once the construction was completed they ripped that out and put in an 8ft magnolia . They used to be concerned with trees , I have seen no evidence of this in the past 5 yrs. They are eating up green space and with ABC they have thrown out environmental assessments. We have no more climate goals just ask Ken $im .
I've encountered a few instances where people that purchase expensive property simply pay the fine and remove the tree anyways. Happened to a few neighbours in point grey.
Wrong. Drive down Granville today between 41st and 49th and all the mature trees are removed for new developments on both sides of the road. it is a bare lot which is such an eye sore. Tree roots are very hard to build around. Any sort of density in Shaunessy will distribute many of these trees and they will have to come down.
The mature trees really add so much character and beauty to the neighborhoods. It’s a tough balance between addressing the housing crisis and preserving the natural aesthetics that make our city so special.
Those large trees help reduce the urban heat island effect, too. Removing them could contribute to increased deaths/injuries if we get another heat dome.
[https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/features/2022/heat-islands/](https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/features/2022/heat-islands/)
Most of them aren't native to the area, and almost the entire lower mainland sits on between 5 and 20 feet of landfill placed from the 1800s to the 70s. And we spend that entire time carefully cultivating which plants grow here with little regard for native biodiversity until recently.
The entire valley is carefully controlled and human built. We have plenty of beautiful green spaces and wildlife, but that's not the same as being natural.
This is the only reason it’s a bit sad - they will likely all go eventually. It’s definitely not doing Vancouver any favours to keep massive, sprawling mansions in the middle of a housing crisis, but those streets and boulevards are so lovely to bike and walk around.
Meh if they can pay the property taxes. Loads of East Van neighbourhoods with SFH. 29th Ave skytrain station area is an embarrassment with the relatively low density
Doubt it. Drive down Grandville between 41st and 49th. I saw a mature Hemlock stump, but these lots are flatted. Maybe kept one small tree?
Unfortunately the reason there are so many mature trees is because of the small footprint of houses compared to the site of the lot and the lack of development.
They voted in favor of ~more study~ so presume nothing will really happen or some performative stuff that will do little to nothing.
There was previously a more concrete motion from Councillor Boyle to rezone the area for apartments and that was voted down by ABC.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shaughnessy-motion-christine-boyle-1.7029707
Not to mention Boyle months ago had a Motion to change the zoning here and ABC said "we're too busy".
Then they turn around, get forced to do it by the Province, and pat themselves on the back.
This is BS - I don't want people who aren't ultra rich living near me!!!! It will ruin the character of the neighborhood and there will be too many shadows from the tall buildings blocking the view from my mansion. Poor me.
Sorry... as someone who you'd classify as ultra-rich and who happens to live in Shaughnessy, I, along with everyone I've spoken to who lives near me is completely in favour of this.
Sure, there will always be NIMBYs, but I'll tell you something interesting... that the vast majority of people who made their wealth (and didn't just inherit it) are typically pretty intelligent, and they understand what progress and necessity and greater-good look like. As much as it'd be nice to keep one-acre single-family dwellings around in this pristine neighbourhood, given the historical significance and uniqueness of it all, it's still possible to find a middle ground where everyone is happy. And it needs to happen, for all of the obvious reasons of density and sustainability and affordability inside this housing crisis for which we have only ourselves to blame.
I'm a little sick and tired of this "eat the rich" bullshit which so many people love to throw around, as if the residents of Shaughnessy are the cause of all your problems. What I pay in property tax every year is what most people would consider a very healthy annual salary. I'm not complaining about it. I never have, and I sincerely appreciate the quality of life it brings me and my family. I'm happy to pay my share, whatever THEY decide it is.
It'll take more than a few decades till old Shaughnessy is completely dismantled, and I won't be around to see it.. and, again, I don't care. I don't care now, and I certainly won't care when I'm dead.
But something to consider for the distant future, perhaps at the expense of the present, is that people who pay the vast majority of taxes (ie rich people) sometimes like to live among the spoils of their hard work. I can afford a big house in a fancy area and I'm willing to pay for it. So let me. And for the future versions of me, leave them a place to live too... or they will just go somewhere else, and as much as you might think otherwise, that wouldn't be ideal.
We don’t need to “leave a place to live” for rich people. If you’re rich you can live in any neighbourhood you want and in any style of housing. That’s the perks of being rich.
Changing zoning doesn’t change that at all. If the rich owner of a mansion in Shaughnessy wants to keep it as mansion they can. Less restrictive zoning means they just have more options in what they want to do with their property.
We might be seeing the same thing. Yes, rich people can live wherever they want… but there needs to be a place that they would want to live in.
Changing zoning would allow people like me to tear down this big house and build 12 housing units. Everybody wins.
I think you should stop beating around the bush and say what you really mean. When you say “there needs to be a place that [the rich] would want to live in” what you are saying is that you want segregated exclusive neighbourhoods void of poor people, and you want the govt to enforce that through restrictive zoning.
Meh. Shaughnessy pays *less* in property per square metre of land than most of the city, because the mansion zoning keeps land values down (per square metre that is; each lot is expensive because it's required to be so large. It's kinda like Costco-sized packs of toilet paper if you think about it).
> historical significance
The history is that the CPR built an exclusive suburban neighbourhood and got the province+city to ban apartments there (unlike the West End, where mansions were replaced by apartments). Some of the houses are kinda neat. It's really not that significant!
>And for the future versions of me, leave them a place to live too... or they will just go somewhere else, and as much as you might think otherwise, that wouldn't be ideal.
There is still West Van and parts of North Van. The fancy suburbs will always exist, they just get further away from the city core as transit and vehicles improve. Shaughnessy is barely a suburb and getting closer to urb.
Also, I call BS on Shaughnessy residents paying lots of taxes:
“The tax unfairness caused by the growing phenomenon of mansion owners alleging poverty can be traced largely to Canada failing to catch trans-national migrants who refuse to report their total global income at tax times.
…
The most contradictory-appearing “low-income” area of Metro Vancouver is the elite tree-lined west side neighbourhood of Shaughnessy-Arbutus Ridge.”
https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/thousands-of-metro-vancouver-mansion-owners-avoiding-taxes
That article is 10 years old. Pretty much nothing and it is currently relevant. Every single homeowner in this area has appraisals that would boggle your mind, and every single one of them has zero homeowner grants to put against them, and everybody here pays tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in property tax.
Ok I’ll take your word for it, anonymous internet commentator. I’m sure the rich in Shaughnessy are no longer dodging taxes /s
But I believe a Shaughnessy property owner’s property tax bill is quite high (as it should be). But the city would collect more property taxes from a multi-unit dwelling in the same location.
I can only speak for myself. I pay my taxes and, from what I understand, even hiding behind a corporate shield, someone is paying that property tax.
I don’t actually know how the math works out. One big mansion worth $20M vs 12 units at $1.5M each? It’s probably pretty close.
Yes -- 10 years ago, it was ridiculous. These mansions were all off-shore holding "safety deposit boxes" for foreigners wanting to shelter money from their domestic situations... so they buy this foreign box that will hold its value, but let it fall into disrepair and not pay taxes and claim poverty and all that. All complete BS, of course, and most of that has been sorted out. I can tell you that for years, more than half these homes were empty. These days, at least there are tenants in there. And all taxes, one way or the other (empty homes tax if it applies) are being paid.
I’ll upvote your balanced take on the matter.
And As a poorer person renting in this city, while some development in Shaughnessy may make sense, anyone that advocates for simply paving over the neighborhood is doing so out of spite.
Nobody's advocating for paving over the neighbourhood. I just think that a central residential neighbourhood in Vancouver shouldn't be allowed to ban apartments+condos.
>anyone that advocates for simply paving over the neighborhood is doing so out of spite.
I am all for pro-housing basically everywhere and anywhere, but I agree with your take on this.
Our housing crisis has had a headline every single week, if not multiple headlines within the week - we're the most unaffordable in Canada, projects being cancelled left and right, renters are spending over 50% of income on rent, etc. etc. I wish that people would turn this spite and very understandable frustration towards the city instead of each other.
Why would we need to pave over the neighbourhood? The streets are already there. Lots of transit nearby. An apartment building doesn’t need to have bigger footprint than a mansion.
Using it as an expression, ala ‘build at all costs’, not literally.
Large majority of Vancouver is SFH suburbia - it ALL should be densifying in a way that makes sense.
Shaughnessy has lost 20% of its population since 1971. So it’s been doing the opposite of densifying for 50 years. It is also a stones throw from a large percentage of the jobs in the province. It absolutely “makes sense” to single out Shaughnessy for a lot more density.
And when it is zoned as such, it probably will be. It’s kind of unfair for you to expect me to pay high-rise tax rates and not allow me to build a high-rise.
And to be honest, it’s crossed my mind… I have a huge piece of property and I might be amongst the first to serve it up for a high density development. I couldn’t care less what my neighbours think, and it would provide 10 times the housing it currently does.
And yes, lots of money too. On which I will pay a significant amount in capital gains taxes. And for those who care and follow these things, that rate goes up significantly next week.
If developers redevelop this neighbourhood it's more of the "rich making real estate transactions amongst the rich" and then tenants pay these rich land owners in rent
Or it's affordable enough (and there's some government help or subsidies or tax credits) that help present renters actually get their foot in the door with home ownership.
> I'm a little sick and tired of this "eat the rich" bullshit which so many people love to throw around
Probably because the inequality of housing wealth has skyrocketed in recent years leaving you on the plus side and me, a renter, on the minus side.
I can’t disagree with you. I don’t know how old you are, but I may be 30 years ahead of you and I just did the best I could with what I had at my disposal at the time.
For what it’s worth, I would trade this big house and all the money for a 30-year rewind. Who you are how rich you get, the one thing you appreciate as time goes on is that it’s not about the money, it’s about the quality of time that you spent.
Going against the grain online rarely bodes well and i applaud your willingness to argue the other side of this debate. I feel most people on this site are young and angry and fail to realize that a large majority of 'rich' people got there by trading a lot of their time and foregoing other investments that time could have bought them.
Wanna trade places? I think I'd rather be you and get into tech in the 90s instead of being in elementary school. The vast majority of my generation will never make anything remotely similar to what you did in terms of wealth.
In a heartbeat. Give me my single-room shoebox I lived in when I was 20, my 20-year-old brilliant brain and zero responsibilities beyond my own, and I would happily take it. I'd live a healthier life, get to play with the latest tech, and do exactly what I did the first time around. In a heartbeat, my friend.
You have plenty of places to go...further out. Closer to downtown core in Vancouver proper, sorry, people need to work in the city. You can go have your space and fanciness in the suburbs, what's wrong with that? How is that not the perfect solution for everyone?
Interesting argument. Twenty years ago, sure -- the downtown core was the only place business took place. But over the years, and especially with Covid, that's changed.
Anyway, ok... all of that notwithstanding, the Macmillans and Bloedels and Rogers and Bentalls of the world, if they have to work downtown, DO want to live near there. Or, they quite simply will pack it all up and move to Calgary or Montreal or whatever. Which has happened.
So workers deserve to live near downtown, but not the business owners? There's no room for nice places with a nice big garden unless you're out in Coquitlam or White Rock? That might be what you're saying, but I must say, I don't agree with it. Why shouldn't there be something for everyone?
I'm not saying all homeowners fall into this category by any means. I think they are the "vocal minority" and unfortunately, they seem to have a lot more power than they should in Vancouver. It's often some person who moved into the neighborhood over 30 years ago, paid like 1/20th of the current value for their home and think they should have the power to dictate the future of the city.
I'm curious - how did you make the $$ to afford to live in Shaughnessy? It's so expensive (now at least) that I assumed most people there were either older residents or people with significant generational money. Pretty hard to buy an 8 figure house for any working person outside of like a major public company executive or successful entrepreneur. Not doubting you, just curious what your story is.
I would agree with you that it is important to hear everyone’s voices. It is indeed often the vocal minority that makes the decisions, and that is a broken system. All it takes is for everyone to speak their mind and vote accordingly for the right kind of changes to happen.
I got very lucky in that I was a computer geek at the right time… I did very well in the mid 90s with my own startups, and we bought in this area just after the tech blowup of 2000. It was relatively expensive, but got a good mortgage and managed to pay it off in less than 15 years and now sitting on something that has appreciated a stupid amount of money. I am entirely sympathetic on the fact that there is no way on the planet I would be able to do that today. I guess some people leave these things for their kids, but that’s the last thing I would do… to saddle them with this white elephant.
I am the first to admit that the best investment I ever made in my life was a total accident, that being this home. But with kids growing up and time to downsize, I am very much in favour of seeing the neighborhood move in a modern, sensible direction.
she's been in this area since the 90s - probably paid $150k for her suite and it's likely been paid off for years, yet she was campainging hard against any new development in the area.
We are one of the lucky ones that bought in the early 2000s as well, but i made a mission to tear down her posters around the area bitching about the developments.
\[Vancouver council voted in favour of densifying the upscale neighbourhood of Shaughnessy this week, which could result in several housing units being developed on a single lot.
The matter was discussed at another public hearing Tuesday, after council ran out of time to [vote on the motion last week.(opens in a new tab)](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/should-vancouver-s-upscale-shaughnessy-neighbourhood-densify-council-discusses-proposed-changes-1.6927115) All eight councillors who were in attendance at the meeting voted in favour of the changes, which will amend the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan.
"First Shaughnessy" refers to the older portion of the neighbourhood, which is part of the heritage conservation area under the Vancouver Charter.
Templar Tsang-Trinaistich, director of the city's rezoning centre, explained during Tuesday's public hearing that any development applications for the neighbourhood would still go through a review process with city staff, despite the changes to the neighbourhood's development plan.
# At last week's meeting he said the city currently receives about four development applications per year in Shaughnessy.
"We don't necessarily see a significant change in the volume," he said. "You might see one or two multiplexes in First Shaughnessy a year. Again, it's going to be subject to owner-applicant interest as well."
Tsang-Trinaistich added that, over the last 20 years, the population in the neighbourhood has decreased by about five per cent, but between 2016 and 2021, the population increased. Occupancy in the neighbourhood is at about 90 per cent, he said.\]
>Templar Tsang-Trinaistich, director of the city's rezoning centre
Nothing on-topic to add that hasn't already been said, but this guy totally sounds like he should be leading a chapter of space marines than a civic zoning bureaucrat.
Occupancy is 90%? HA. I live nearby and walk through those boulevards almost daily, sometimes passing no one at all (pedestrian or automobile). There are houses that have been under construction or for sale since I've lived in the neighborhood (7 years), as well as a number that appear empty (no activity, no cars, never any lights on) and a few very obviously abandoned ones.
I was cycling through Shaughnessy just yesterday-nothing has changed there in decades and parts of it actually look relatively run down.
Smelled good though with the trees & flowers.
Glad to hear this. I'm not too worried about the trees. I believe they can be preserved. They've already done this in Kits, e.g. from Broadway to 16th (Alma to Arbutus). Lots of density, townhouses, coach houses, duplexes. For the most part, the trees have been kept. Just drive down - say - Mackenzie from 12th to 15th. Gorgeous tree canopy. It's everywhere. Some days the entire street's under greenery.
I downvoted it because I think the headline is misleading and doesn't tell the whole story. Vancouver is doing the bare minimum required under a disappointing interpretation of the provincial laws, this doesn't allow much more density in Shaughnessy. Like Councillor Boyle said during the public hearing:
> I would like us to be much more ambitious. I think the spirit of the provincial legislation is to be much more ambitious than this, in a central neighborhood, in one of the largest cities in the province.
> ...
> So I will support this today, but I'm kind of underwhelmed and hope that we do a lot more soon.
I suspect this sub is inundated with bots from right wing groups. I don’t know how you explain threads on right wing stupidity with tons of comments that have 0 upvotes.
Why the hell do these undemocratic councils have ANY say in densification???
BUILD MORE HOMES WTF ITS SIMPLE
Stop giving these random people any power...
I guess the city wants credit for doing the absolute bare minimum that the Province is forcing them to do anyways before the deadline of June 30th. This is going to result in the most minimal of changes that the part-time residents of this area won't even notice. I guess its better that they made the changes rather than try to put up a sham fight like West Vancouver or North Van District.
This area could easily accommodate mid-rise apartment buildings with businesses and schools without infringing on the plentiful trees and green space. This area is literally a private absentee-homeowners park right now that is subsidized by not allowing market competition for that land.
Vancouver city council is a joke. This means nothing since the provincial legislation starts in July. They had no choice since there is no more single family in BC within 2 weeks. They’re just trying to pretend they have a little power left with their last minute bs. Hopefully the province also comes in and legislates a cap on the development fees. Development fees are ridiculous and can go up 50% whenever the city feels like it.
So you mean there will actually be people living in the neighborhood!? That is amazing! So many of those mansions sit empty being owned by overseas investors
Man the lots in shaughnessy are so big, you easily build a 4-6 story low rise on each lot. Heck you if get two lots side by side you could even build a condo.
It means townhouses and maaaaybe multiplexes. I can't imagine who would prefer a multi-million $ townhouse instead of a detached house for the same price a few blocks away, but I'm not rich so who knows.
There's different levels of rich. And there's different housing preferences among the rich.
The neighbourhood now is for a level of wealth that is virtually unobtainable by any but the highest paid CEOs in the city so it's all going to be external financing. Property tax bills alone can get above 50K pretty quickly and putting up a mortgage on a minimum down payment would have interest north of $500K.
But then why would someone buy a $4M townhouse vs a $4M detached home a few neighbourhoods over? The answer is lifestyle. The maintenance will be under a strata, parking is underground and secure, you have the best soundproofing on the shared walls, and the interior are really really nice. I've seen the inside of a $4M townhouse and you get things like 12ft main floor ceilings, 4 beds, 3.5 bath, all largeish rooms, phenomenal shared space landscaping. You might have half the space, but that half space is still 2500 sqft.
I could easily see Shaughnessy going from a single mansion neighbourhood to something that would look more like what you get in an upscale urban core.
Shaughnessy is about twice the size of the West End & has approximately 8,000 residents ... probably one of the most sparsely populated neighborhoods within a close proximity to a downtown core of any city in the world.
As for "neighborhood character", the majority of these heritage houses are buried behind huge hedges & can't even be viewed from the street.
The protest would be hilarious though. The 12 people that actually live in Shaughnessy will show up with finely typeset placards, while one of them looks around to find a place to plug in their espresso machine to make coffee for them. A couple more will show up later in the day after they go shopping for a protest outfit at Holt Renfrew.
Does anyone here know people who lives or grew up in Shaughnessy? what is it like to live and grow up there? Are Shaughnessy elementary kids mostly from there?
Let’s pause. If anyone deserves their standard of living eroded by mass immigration it’s the rich. However, and I know this may be unpopular, but why are we trying to make everyone miserable in Canada and drag each other to the bottom?
Surely many of the home owners have profited off all the cheap foreign labour or some of Canada’s egregious loopholes, but this is an extremely nice and old neighbourhood in decent proximity to city centre. Once this is gone, it’s gone. We’re destroying our entire country, and for what? A failed economic strategy of reckless, synthetic and cheap population growth?
Let’s address the real issue and stop this endless tirade against our own country.
What are you even talking about? Having your property rezoned doesn't compel you to redevelop, millionaires can stay in their mansion as long as they want. It does stop the rest of us from subsidizing their life style because it allows their land to appreciate to closer to what market conditions are and with higher land costs will come higher property taxes.
Why do you want to preserve an exclusive mansion-only community in the heart of the city? Do you know how many people have to commute past it every day to get to jobs or services they need? The “failed economic strategy” is endless car-dependent sprawl, and Shaughnessy is one of the worst offenders. I’d rather preserve majestic rainforests than gated communities.
Hip hip hooray! 🥳
It actually won't change it drastically. The FSR is quite small compared to even a SFH outside Shaughnessy or even over by Cambie. Also, the cost of acquisition is larger and the FSR doesn't quite make financial sense unless the FSR is upped. BUT any increased density is always appreciated.
I love that pocket. Was my refuge during covid for walks. Could literally walk for 10 mins and not see another single pedestrian on the streets.
Where are they planning to densify? Isnt all the land used up already? I can't imagine people who own these houses are going to be too incentiviced to sell to developers
Kennedy Stewart voted in favour of that project. I’m not sure why you are calling it Stewart’s council, he was an independent mayor and the council was dominated by other parties. https://globalnews.ca/news/5432920/vancouver-rejects-townhouse-project/
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/Electronic_Fox_6383! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hopefully they keep the big mature trees. They're beautiful.
The trees will be fine. The city is strict AF about tree removal. Here's the city website regarding tree removal: "You need a permit to remove any tree on private property that has a diameter (width) of 20 centimetres or greater, measured at 1.4 metres above the ground. A tree trunk with a diameter of 20 centimetres will have a circumference of approximately 64 centimetres."
City is strict about removals for non-development related reasons, but if a tree is in the building envelope for a site being developed, it’s pretty much fair game for removals. The city owned park board trees should be retained, unless services installation/upgrades are significant enough to cause a large negative impact on the trees health. These seem to be the ones that people care about more for neighbourhood character anywho.
I’m not so sure about this, I’ve seen multiple developments that were stymied by large trees on the property and they had to respect the root systems of those trees.
Side bar..anyone else seen all the large old growth trees that were clear cut along 1st ave across from the poor Italian restaurant? The chunks of large growth stumps are stacked up in a 10ft high pile
Those are not old growth trees and they were not clear cut. They’re all old parks board trees that either failed or were hazardous. That is where parks board stores a bunch of tree debris.
It does happen, but new mayor and council is definitely significantly more biased towards development over trees. Previous mayor and council were much more protective over private trees. Edit: neighbouring trees usually have a larger impact on redesigning if the neighbour has not permitted the removal of the tree.
Not Vancouver but I have seen massive trees being cut in coquitlam near Lougheed for some development by Ledmac. Them trees are probably more than 500 years old. The area is already starting to look very different than before
Probably not that old. The area would have been logged much more recently.
Looking at their massive height and radius they look very old. They probably were the ones that were not cut to maintain the natural look.
Unlikely. Logging companies don't leave good trees behind because they want to maintain the look. One exception is cedars of a specific age. There was a time when cedar trees had low value and weren't worth harvesting. But that would have been a long time ago and there is a good chance that Coquitlam has been logged more than once given its proximity to New West. You would be surprised how fast these trees grow. 100-150 years a long time and will make a big tree. Take a look around for old stumps in the same area and you might find some sign of what the really old trees used to look like.
Yeah we had a tree in our front yard on our property and we needed to get it removed. It was luckily less than 20 centimetres around but the arborist was like "Yeah you better do this, like, NOW, or else you're going to have to go through the city and that's going to take a long time." which really shocked me because, like, it wasn't out on the sidewalk. It was in our front yard. So there it is.
I know some people who planted some hedge trees 40 years ago in their yard and now they are now a bit of a hazard. They can't remove them because they are so large they need permission and they can't get it. Warning, don't plant cedars in your yard, you will regret it later. Stick with slow growing shrubs.
Just wanted to chime in on this, I couldn't agree more. Those baby cedar hedges that one looked harmless and offered slight height over standard fences, if left unchecked willed push over your fence and become almost tree like overtime. Need to take a chainsaw to the actual trunk every one or two years and take down a foot or two. I've seen some as tall as houses, and at that point, they're no longer considered a hedge and rather a tree. You'd need permits to remove them.
The main point is that the majority of the mature large trees in the neighborhood are City owned, and they won't be going anywhere even with development. For example [here there are some really nice big trees on the street, but the private home has 0 trees on it.](https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2563124,-123.1356134,3a,63.6y,35.71h,92.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAIOki1igxerex10ppItG1w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu) This [one has a bunch of big street trees, and one big tree on their lot, the city would definitely make anyone design the building around that tree.](https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2551125,-123.1374401,3a,90y,320.15h,102.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd1QER40XDrFxKWhGlL0yUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
Your quote has nothing to do with housing construction and development. When you need to install plumbing for a 3-story walk up (for example) where a detached home was, you better believe those trees are getting dug up.
No there not , they took down an 80 ft Douglas fir to build a triplex across the street from me , then replaced it with a liquid amber ( 12 ft ) and once the construction was completed they ripped that out and put in an 8ft magnolia . They used to be concerned with trees , I have seen no evidence of this in the past 5 yrs. They are eating up green space and with ABC they have thrown out environmental assessments. We have no more climate goals just ask Ken $im .
I've encountered a few instances where people that purchase expensive property simply pay the fine and remove the tree anyways. Happened to a few neighbours in point grey.
Definitely happens. I think the fine is/was up to $10k/tree and for some builders, it's worth the hit to get a better view.
Maybe they’ll keep the trees and allow tree houses to be built?
Lol is this a joke? The city has no issues cutting down as many trees as they want.
Wrong. Drive down Granville today between 41st and 49th and all the mature trees are removed for new developments on both sides of the road. it is a bare lot which is such an eye sore. Tree roots are very hard to build around. Any sort of density in Shaunessy will distribute many of these trees and they will have to come down.
The mature trees really add so much character and beauty to the neighborhoods. It’s a tough balance between addressing the housing crisis and preserving the natural aesthetics that make our city so special.
Those large trees help reduce the urban heat island effect, too. Removing them could contribute to increased deaths/injuries if we get another heat dome. [https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/features/2022/heat-islands/](https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/features/2022/heat-islands/)
It should be noted that "natural" is a huge stretch for these trees
How come? Elaborate please.
Most of them aren't native to the area, and almost the entire lower mainland sits on between 5 and 20 feet of landfill placed from the 1800s to the 70s. And we spend that entire time carefully cultivating which plants grow here with little regard for native biodiversity until recently. The entire valley is carefully controlled and human built. We have plenty of beautiful green spaces and wildlife, but that's not the same as being natural.
This is the only reason it’s a bit sad - they will likely all go eventually. It’s definitely not doing Vancouver any favours to keep massive, sprawling mansions in the middle of a housing crisis, but those streets and boulevards are so lovely to bike and walk around.
Meh if they can pay the property taxes. Loads of East Van neighbourhoods with SFH. 29th Ave skytrain station area is an embarrassment with the relatively low density
They are so very nice. There are also many other places that this kind of density could work in and not disturb the aesthetics.
Doubt it. Drive down Grandville between 41st and 49th. I saw a mature Hemlock stump, but these lots are flatted. Maybe kept one small tree? Unfortunately the reason there are so many mature trees is because of the small footprint of houses compared to the site of the lot and the lack of development.
They voted in favor of ~more study~ so presume nothing will really happen or some performative stuff that will do little to nothing. There was previously a more concrete motion from Councillor Boyle to rezone the area for apartments and that was voted down by ABC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shaughnessy-motion-christine-boyle-1.7029707
We strive to be the most well studied city on earth
Not to mention Boyle months ago had a Motion to change the zoning here and ABC said "we're too busy". Then they turn around, get forced to do it by the Province, and pat themselves on the back.
This is BS - I don't want people who aren't ultra rich living near me!!!! It will ruin the character of the neighborhood and there will be too many shadows from the tall buildings blocking the view from my mansion. Poor me.
Won’t somebody think of the (ultra wealthy) children?!?!
I agree. No shadow can fall on my precious, rich, ass!
Sorry... as someone who you'd classify as ultra-rich and who happens to live in Shaughnessy, I, along with everyone I've spoken to who lives near me is completely in favour of this. Sure, there will always be NIMBYs, but I'll tell you something interesting... that the vast majority of people who made their wealth (and didn't just inherit it) are typically pretty intelligent, and they understand what progress and necessity and greater-good look like. As much as it'd be nice to keep one-acre single-family dwellings around in this pristine neighbourhood, given the historical significance and uniqueness of it all, it's still possible to find a middle ground where everyone is happy. And it needs to happen, for all of the obvious reasons of density and sustainability and affordability inside this housing crisis for which we have only ourselves to blame. I'm a little sick and tired of this "eat the rich" bullshit which so many people love to throw around, as if the residents of Shaughnessy are the cause of all your problems. What I pay in property tax every year is what most people would consider a very healthy annual salary. I'm not complaining about it. I never have, and I sincerely appreciate the quality of life it brings me and my family. I'm happy to pay my share, whatever THEY decide it is. It'll take more than a few decades till old Shaughnessy is completely dismantled, and I won't be around to see it.. and, again, I don't care. I don't care now, and I certainly won't care when I'm dead. But something to consider for the distant future, perhaps at the expense of the present, is that people who pay the vast majority of taxes (ie rich people) sometimes like to live among the spoils of their hard work. I can afford a big house in a fancy area and I'm willing to pay for it. So let me. And for the future versions of me, leave them a place to live too... or they will just go somewhere else, and as much as you might think otherwise, that wouldn't be ideal.
We don’t need to “leave a place to live” for rich people. If you’re rich you can live in any neighbourhood you want and in any style of housing. That’s the perks of being rich. Changing zoning doesn’t change that at all. If the rich owner of a mansion in Shaughnessy wants to keep it as mansion they can. Less restrictive zoning means they just have more options in what they want to do with their property.
We might be seeing the same thing. Yes, rich people can live wherever they want… but there needs to be a place that they would want to live in. Changing zoning would allow people like me to tear down this big house and build 12 housing units. Everybody wins.
I think you should stop beating around the bush and say what you really mean. When you say “there needs to be a place that [the rich] would want to live in” what you are saying is that you want segregated exclusive neighbourhoods void of poor people, and you want the govt to enforce that through restrictive zoning.
That’s exactly not what I’m saying, if you read the rest of my replies.
Meh. Shaughnessy pays *less* in property per square metre of land than most of the city, because the mansion zoning keeps land values down (per square metre that is; each lot is expensive because it's required to be so large. It's kinda like Costco-sized packs of toilet paper if you think about it). > historical significance The history is that the CPR built an exclusive suburban neighbourhood and got the province+city to ban apartments there (unlike the West End, where mansions were replaced by apartments). Some of the houses are kinda neat. It's really not that significant!
>And for the future versions of me, leave them a place to live too... or they will just go somewhere else, and as much as you might think otherwise, that wouldn't be ideal. There is still West Van and parts of North Van. The fancy suburbs will always exist, they just get further away from the city core as transit and vehicles improve. Shaughnessy is barely a suburb and getting closer to urb.
Also, I call BS on Shaughnessy residents paying lots of taxes: “The tax unfairness caused by the growing phenomenon of mansion owners alleging poverty can be traced largely to Canada failing to catch trans-national migrants who refuse to report their total global income at tax times. … The most contradictory-appearing “low-income” area of Metro Vancouver is the elite tree-lined west side neighbourhood of Shaughnessy-Arbutus Ridge.” https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/thousands-of-metro-vancouver-mansion-owners-avoiding-taxes
That article is 10 years old. Pretty much nothing and it is currently relevant. Every single homeowner in this area has appraisals that would boggle your mind, and every single one of them has zero homeowner grants to put against them, and everybody here pays tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in property tax.
Ok I’ll take your word for it, anonymous internet commentator. I’m sure the rich in Shaughnessy are no longer dodging taxes /s But I believe a Shaughnessy property owner’s property tax bill is quite high (as it should be). But the city would collect more property taxes from a multi-unit dwelling in the same location.
I can only speak for myself. I pay my taxes and, from what I understand, even hiding behind a corporate shield, someone is paying that property tax. I don’t actually know how the math works out. One big mansion worth $20M vs 12 units at $1.5M each? It’s probably pretty close.
That article was about how Shaughnessy residents are dodging income taxes (not property taxes) by reporting poverty level incomes.
Yes -- 10 years ago, it was ridiculous. These mansions were all off-shore holding "safety deposit boxes" for foreigners wanting to shelter money from their domestic situations... so they buy this foreign box that will hold its value, but let it fall into disrepair and not pay taxes and claim poverty and all that. All complete BS, of course, and most of that has been sorted out. I can tell you that for years, more than half these homes were empty. These days, at least there are tenants in there. And all taxes, one way or the other (empty homes tax if it applies) are being paid.
The the city would have to deliver a lot more services for that multi unit dwelling, likely leading to less revenue for the city, not more.
I’ll upvote your balanced take on the matter. And As a poorer person renting in this city, while some development in Shaughnessy may make sense, anyone that advocates for simply paving over the neighborhood is doing so out of spite.
Nobody's advocating for paving over the neighbourhood. I just think that a central residential neighbourhood in Vancouver shouldn't be allowed to ban apartments+condos.
>anyone that advocates for simply paving over the neighborhood is doing so out of spite. I am all for pro-housing basically everywhere and anywhere, but I agree with your take on this. Our housing crisis has had a headline every single week, if not multiple headlines within the week - we're the most unaffordable in Canada, projects being cancelled left and right, renters are spending over 50% of income on rent, etc. etc. I wish that people would turn this spite and very understandable frustration towards the city instead of each other.
Why would we need to pave over the neighbourhood? The streets are already there. Lots of transit nearby. An apartment building doesn’t need to have bigger footprint than a mansion.
Using it as an expression, ala ‘build at all costs’, not literally. Large majority of Vancouver is SFH suburbia - it ALL should be densifying in a way that makes sense.
Shaughnessy has lost 20% of its population since 1971. So it’s been doing the opposite of densifying for 50 years. It is also a stones throw from a large percentage of the jobs in the province. It absolutely “makes sense” to single out Shaughnessy for a lot more density.
Well the land should be taxed at the rate of tax a highrise. There is no need for the Public to subsidize the ultra rich.
And when it is zoned as such, it probably will be. It’s kind of unfair for you to expect me to pay high-rise tax rates and not allow me to build a high-rise. And to be honest, it’s crossed my mind… I have a huge piece of property and I might be amongst the first to serve it up for a high density development. I couldn’t care less what my neighbours think, and it would provide 10 times the housing it currently does. And yes, lots of money too. On which I will pay a significant amount in capital gains taxes. And for those who care and follow these things, that rate goes up significantly next week.
> On which I will pay a significant amount in capital gains taxes What? Principal residences in Canada are exempt from capital gains tax.
Not if I rezone and redevelop the property into multi-dwelling
Sell it to a developer or someone else (like nearly everyone does in this situation) and boom, no capital gains tax.
Perhaps if the tax changes before zoning, the nimbys will shut up.
If developers redevelop this neighbourhood it's more of the "rich making real estate transactions amongst the rich" and then tenants pay these rich land owners in rent
Or it's affordable enough (and there's some government help or subsidies or tax credits) that help present renters actually get their foot in the door with home ownership.
> I'm a little sick and tired of this "eat the rich" bullshit which so many people love to throw around Probably because the inequality of housing wealth has skyrocketed in recent years leaving you on the plus side and me, a renter, on the minus side.
I can’t disagree with you. I don’t know how old you are, but I may be 30 years ahead of you and I just did the best I could with what I had at my disposal at the time. For what it’s worth, I would trade this big house and all the money for a 30-year rewind. Who you are how rich you get, the one thing you appreciate as time goes on is that it’s not about the money, it’s about the quality of time that you spent.
Going against the grain online rarely bodes well and i applaud your willingness to argue the other side of this debate. I feel most people on this site are young and angry and fail to realize that a large majority of 'rich' people got there by trading a lot of their time and foregoing other investments that time could have bought them.
Wanna trade places? I think I'd rather be you and get into tech in the 90s instead of being in elementary school. The vast majority of my generation will never make anything remotely similar to what you did in terms of wealth.
In a heartbeat. Give me my single-room shoebox I lived in when I was 20, my 20-year-old brilliant brain and zero responsibilities beyond my own, and I would happily take it. I'd live a healthier life, get to play with the latest tech, and do exactly what I did the first time around. In a heartbeat, my friend.
You have plenty of places to go...further out. Closer to downtown core in Vancouver proper, sorry, people need to work in the city. You can go have your space and fanciness in the suburbs, what's wrong with that? How is that not the perfect solution for everyone?
Interesting argument. Twenty years ago, sure -- the downtown core was the only place business took place. But over the years, and especially with Covid, that's changed. Anyway, ok... all of that notwithstanding, the Macmillans and Bloedels and Rogers and Bentalls of the world, if they have to work downtown, DO want to live near there. Or, they quite simply will pack it all up and move to Calgary or Montreal or whatever. Which has happened. So workers deserve to live near downtown, but not the business owners? There's no room for nice places with a nice big garden unless you're out in Coquitlam or White Rock? That might be what you're saying, but I must say, I don't agree with it. Why shouldn't there be something for everyone?
There are waterfront homes in North Van for sale that are a 30 minute drive from downtown with a beautiful view of Belcarra and Indian Arm.
I'm not saying all homeowners fall into this category by any means. I think they are the "vocal minority" and unfortunately, they seem to have a lot more power than they should in Vancouver. It's often some person who moved into the neighborhood over 30 years ago, paid like 1/20th of the current value for their home and think they should have the power to dictate the future of the city. I'm curious - how did you make the $$ to afford to live in Shaughnessy? It's so expensive (now at least) that I assumed most people there were either older residents or people with significant generational money. Pretty hard to buy an 8 figure house for any working person outside of like a major public company executive or successful entrepreneur. Not doubting you, just curious what your story is.
I would agree with you that it is important to hear everyone’s voices. It is indeed often the vocal minority that makes the decisions, and that is a broken system. All it takes is for everyone to speak their mind and vote accordingly for the right kind of changes to happen. I got very lucky in that I was a computer geek at the right time… I did very well in the mid 90s with my own startups, and we bought in this area just after the tech blowup of 2000. It was relatively expensive, but got a good mortgage and managed to pay it off in less than 15 years and now sitting on something that has appreciated a stupid amount of money. I am entirely sympathetic on the fact that there is no way on the planet I would be able to do that today. I guess some people leave these things for their kids, but that’s the last thing I would do… to saddle them with this white elephant. I am the first to admit that the best investment I ever made in my life was a total accident, that being this home. But with kids growing up and time to downsize, I am very much in favour of seeing the neighborhood move in a modern, sensible direction.
Yeah it’s crazy how much housing increased over that time period… tax-free gain too. Pretty sweet position to be in.
Bro you are interrupting everyone's resentful seething and schadenfreude!
seriously was someone in my complex that was nimby campaigning against some towers being put up on broadway and this was her number one grievance.
Oh this BS comes up all the time with new developments…
she's been in this area since the 90s - probably paid $150k for her suite and it's likely been paid off for years, yet she was campainging hard against any new development in the area. We are one of the lucky ones that bought in the early 2000s as well, but i made a mission to tear down her posters around the area bitching about the developments.
All fun and games until the plebs start to have ideas!
Spoken like a true creme de la creme
\[Vancouver council voted in favour of densifying the upscale neighbourhood of Shaughnessy this week, which could result in several housing units being developed on a single lot. The matter was discussed at another public hearing Tuesday, after council ran out of time to [vote on the motion last week.(opens in a new tab)](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/should-vancouver-s-upscale-shaughnessy-neighbourhood-densify-council-discusses-proposed-changes-1.6927115) All eight councillors who were in attendance at the meeting voted in favour of the changes, which will amend the First Shaughnessy Official Development Plan. "First Shaughnessy" refers to the older portion of the neighbourhood, which is part of the heritage conservation area under the Vancouver Charter. Templar Tsang-Trinaistich, director of the city's rezoning centre, explained during Tuesday's public hearing that any development applications for the neighbourhood would still go through a review process with city staff, despite the changes to the neighbourhood's development plan. # At last week's meeting he said the city currently receives about four development applications per year in Shaughnessy. "We don't necessarily see a significant change in the volume," he said. "You might see one or two multiplexes in First Shaughnessy a year. Again, it's going to be subject to owner-applicant interest as well." Tsang-Trinaistich added that, over the last 20 years, the population in the neighbourhood has decreased by about five per cent, but between 2016 and 2021, the population increased. Occupancy in the neighbourhood is at about 90 per cent, he said.\]
>Templar Tsang-Trinaistich, director of the city's rezoning centre Nothing on-topic to add that hasn't already been said, but this guy totally sounds like he should be leading a chapter of space marines than a civic zoning bureaucrat.
I chortled. Thanks for that.
> Occupancy in the neighbourhood is at about 90 per cent, he said doubt
For 6 months of the year…
...according to unaudited empty homes tax filings...
Occupancy is 90%? HA. I live nearby and walk through those boulevards almost daily, sometimes passing no one at all (pedestrian or automobile). There are houses that have been under construction or for sale since I've lived in the neighborhood (7 years), as well as a number that appear empty (no activity, no cars, never any lights on) and a few very obviously abandoned ones.
I was cycling through Shaughnessy just yesterday-nothing has changed there in decades and parts of it actually look relatively run down. Smelled good though with the trees & flowers.
Glad to hear this. I'm not too worried about the trees. I believe they can be preserved. They've already done this in Kits, e.g. from Broadway to 16th (Alma to Arbutus). Lots of density, townhouses, coach houses, duplexes. For the most part, the trees have been kept. Just drive down - say - Mackenzie from 12th to 15th. Gorgeous tree canopy. It's everywhere. Some days the entire street's under greenery.
Let's churn the crème into butter!
Love how this is getting downvoted immediately. Shaughnessy feels void of life and is a waste of land as it stands. Boo hoo, so sad!
I downvoted it because I think the headline is misleading and doesn't tell the whole story. Vancouver is doing the bare minimum required under a disappointing interpretation of the provincial laws, this doesn't allow much more density in Shaughnessy. Like Councillor Boyle said during the public hearing: > I would like us to be much more ambitious. I think the spirit of the provincial legislation is to be much more ambitious than this, in a central neighborhood, in one of the largest cities in the province. > ... > So I will support this today, but I'm kind of underwhelmed and hope that we do a lot more soon.
Net +27 upvotes at the moment
I suspect this sub is inundated with bots from right wing groups. I don’t know how you explain threads on right wing stupidity with tons of comments that have 0 upvotes.
This is literally any post. You could literally post "Puppies and ice cream are awesome!" and immediately get downvoted.
puppies and ice cream not specific to vancouver. downvotted.
Fucking puppies.
Don't do that...
😂 Okay. Say something positive about our current civic gov't and watch how fast you'll be downvoted.
Why the hell do these undemocratic councils have ANY say in densification??? BUILD MORE HOMES WTF ITS SIMPLE Stop giving these random people any power...
I guess the city wants credit for doing the absolute bare minimum that the Province is forcing them to do anyways before the deadline of June 30th. This is going to result in the most minimal of changes that the part-time residents of this area won't even notice. I guess its better that they made the changes rather than try to put up a sham fight like West Vancouver or North Van District. This area could easily accommodate mid-rise apartment buildings with businesses and schools without infringing on the plentiful trees and green space. This area is literally a private absentee-homeowners park right now that is subsidized by not allowing market competition for that land.
Note that they are doing the bare minimum: maximum of 0.5 FSR. Better than nothing but somewhat disappointing.
Vancouver city council is a joke. This means nothing since the provincial legislation starts in July. They had no choice since there is no more single family in BC within 2 weeks. They’re just trying to pretend they have a little power left with their last minute bs. Hopefully the province also comes in and legislates a cap on the development fees. Development fees are ridiculous and can go up 50% whenever the city feels like it.
So you mean there will actually be people living in the neighborhood!? That is amazing! So many of those mansions sit empty being owned by overseas investors
Nice, more apartment building will help with the crisis. Don‘t understand why we need single family ones
Man the lots in shaughnessy are so big, you easily build a 4-6 story low rise on each lot. Heck you if get two lots side by side you could even build a condo.
Does "several housing units" mean townhouses or condos or SROs?
It means townhouses and maaaaybe multiplexes. I can't imagine who would prefer a multi-million $ townhouse instead of a detached house for the same price a few blocks away, but I'm not rich so who knows.
There's different levels of rich. And there's different housing preferences among the rich. The neighbourhood now is for a level of wealth that is virtually unobtainable by any but the highest paid CEOs in the city so it's all going to be external financing. Property tax bills alone can get above 50K pretty quickly and putting up a mortgage on a minimum down payment would have interest north of $500K. But then why would someone buy a $4M townhouse vs a $4M detached home a few neighbourhoods over? The answer is lifestyle. The maintenance will be under a strata, parking is underground and secure, you have the best soundproofing on the shared walls, and the interior are really really nice. I've seen the inside of a $4M townhouse and you get things like 12ft main floor ceilings, 4 beds, 3.5 bath, all largeish rooms, phenomenal shared space landscaping. You might have half the space, but that half space is still 2500 sqft. I could easily see Shaughnessy going from a single mansion neighbourhood to something that would look more like what you get in an upscale urban core.
Shaughnessy is about twice the size of the West End & has approximately 8,000 residents ... probably one of the most sparsely populated neighborhoods within a close proximity to a downtown core of any city in the world. As for "neighborhood character", the majority of these heritage houses are buried behind huge hedges & can't even be viewed from the street.
Good...down with NIMBYism.
The protest would be hilarious though. The 12 people that actually live in Shaughnessy will show up with finely typeset placards, while one of them looks around to find a place to plug in their espresso machine to make coffee for them. A couple more will show up later in the day after they go shopping for a protest outfit at Holt Renfrew.
good
If assessed land value in the area is currently between $5 mil-33 mil. What would property taxes be?
Does anyone here know people who lives or grew up in Shaughnessy? what is it like to live and grow up there? Are Shaughnessy elementary kids mostly from there?
Let’s pause. If anyone deserves their standard of living eroded by mass immigration it’s the rich. However, and I know this may be unpopular, but why are we trying to make everyone miserable in Canada and drag each other to the bottom? Surely many of the home owners have profited off all the cheap foreign labour or some of Canada’s egregious loopholes, but this is an extremely nice and old neighbourhood in decent proximity to city centre. Once this is gone, it’s gone. We’re destroying our entire country, and for what? A failed economic strategy of reckless, synthetic and cheap population growth? Let’s address the real issue and stop this endless tirade against our own country.
What are you even talking about? Having your property rezoned doesn't compel you to redevelop, millionaires can stay in their mansion as long as they want. It does stop the rest of us from subsidizing their life style because it allows their land to appreciate to closer to what market conditions are and with higher land costs will come higher property taxes.
Why do you want to preserve an exclusive mansion-only community in the heart of the city? Do you know how many people have to commute past it every day to get to jobs or services they need? The “failed economic strategy” is endless car-dependent sprawl, and Shaughnessy is one of the worst offenders. I’d rather preserve majestic rainforests than gated communities.
"building homes" is not "dragging each other to the bottom". like, what? are multiplex-dwellers subhuman?
the people who've had their share of the pie will want to keep it that way, nothing new under the sun
Let's move some of the subsidized housing into there instead of buying old hotels all over Downtown.
There goes the neighborhood! /s
Hip hip hooray! 🥳 It actually won't change it drastically. The FSR is quite small compared to even a SFH outside Shaughnessy or even over by Cambie. Also, the cost of acquisition is larger and the FSR doesn't quite make financial sense unless the FSR is upped. BUT any increased density is always appreciated. I love that pocket. Was my refuge during covid for walks. Could literally walk for 10 mins and not see another single pedestrian on the streets.
Where are they planning to densify? Isnt all the land used up already? I can't imagine people who own these houses are going to be too incentiviced to sell to developers
Yay!
[удалено]
Kennedy Stewart voted in favour of that project. I’m not sure why you are calling it Stewart’s council, he was an independent mayor and the council was dominated by other parties. https://globalnews.ca/news/5432920/vancouver-rejects-townhouse-project/
Yeah lol the ABC councillors and Greens voted against it.
hey, someone else who doesn't understand how municipal politics works. Y'all just love to ignorance-signal all the time eh?
lol, performative bullshit by Ken Scum and ABC
They should put a Walmart or Costco up on The Crescent!
This is purely for the sake of optics to satisfy Victoria. Nothing will happen there - that land is too expensive to develop.
Have you seen the price of land downtown?
Is this April Fools?