From: Patrick Condon [SMTP:patrick.condon@ubc.ca]
To: Smart Growth BC Livable Communities Listserv
Cc:

Subject: [SGBC]Small is Beautiful at SEFC; A Modest Proposal for Modest Lots
Sent: 16/03/04 8:45 AM
Importance: Normal
Below is a commentary piece for submission to local media. Please
distribute if you so choose.

_______________________________________________



>Small is Beautiful at SEFC ; A Modest Proposal for Modest Lots
>
>Patrick M. Condon. UBC James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable
>Environments
>
>
>
>I just don't get it. The City of Vancouver feels lucky to get one million
>dollars an acre for SEFC waterfront land, but most other land in the city
>is worth many times that.
>
>If my duplex here at 7th and Collingwood were to burn down tomorrow, the
>charred 3,300 sq. foot parcel would sell for about a half million. That is
>about 150 dollars per square foot, or over six million dollars per acre!
>Moreover, that's without a view of anything but the schoolyard across the
>street and the nearest water a ten minute walk away.
>
>OK, sure, the surrounding streets are not counted in that amount, and you
>need roads and such; but even if you include my share of the roads on my
>600 foot by 300 foot block (with city lane) and subtract the value of the
>pavement, pipes, and utility infrastructure necessary to service it, my
>lot still has a value in excess of 4 million per acre.
>
>Now again, call me naive, but I think the land at SEFC is at least as
>valuable as mine. So why doesn't the city simply do it the old-fashioned
>way, just like in the rest of our beautiful city: subdivide the land into
>urban blocks and sell off lots at 150 bucks a square foot?
>
>Using simple math it looks to me like the 50 acres might return, after
>deducting servicing costs, a cool 200 million. Take 30 million off the top
>for soil remediation, set aside 50 million to produce 500 units of
>affordable housing, 20 million for community facilities and sustainable
>infrastructure and, well, you get the idea. There is still 100 million
>left in the pot.
>
>In short, what SEFC needs is a sustainable development strategy based on
>traditional blocks and small lots. I may be in the minority, but my
>favourite part of our redeveloped downtown is the part of Yaletown that
>occupies traditional 300 by 600 foot urban blocks. There high rise towers
>press party walls against low-rise buildings, all on relatively small lots
>ranging from 3,000 to 35,000 sq. feet.
>
>This might seem crazy, but small lot low-rise development can provide just
>as many housing units as large lot high rises can. Under existing
>guidelines, densities in the developed parts of SEFC are not to exceed a
>floor surface ratio (FSR) of 3. That's "planner speak" for a prohibition
>on floor space area such that it cannot exceed site area by more than a
>factor of three. An FSR of three can be met in many ways. It could be met
>by three story buildings covering the whole site, or 5 story buildings
>covering 60% of the site, 20 story buildings covering 15% of the site and
>so forth. High-rise districts are not as dense as you might think. Towers
>must be widely spaced to prevent shading the streets below and the
>buildings beyond. Lower buildings don't have this problem and can thus
>cover more land. That's how low rise buildings can get you as many units
>per acre as high rise.
>
>A small lot, low rise strategy would also allow hundreds of local,
>national, and international architects to participate in the project.
>Hundreds of different examples of sustainable architecture would emerge -
>a showplace for the world and a lasting legacy.
>
>Not just architectural practice would benefit. A small lot strategy would
>allow scores of small developers a chance to participate, rather than the
>two or three out of town developers with access to billions. It would
>allow all of our local financial and credit unions to participate in the
>construction of this once in a lifetime opportunity, rather than the few
>global financial consortiums that finance mega projects. It would even
>allow individuals or groups of citizens a chance to buy their own lot,
>hire their own architect, and work with their own developer in bringing to
>life their dream home or co-housing project. In short, it would keep the
>money local, and draw on the talent pool and resources of British
>Columbians. This is sustainable economics for a sustainable South East
>False Creek.
>
>The city could take some of the apparently ample financial resources
>generated by the project and apply them to installing sustainable
>infrastructure systems on the site: community gardens, green sanitary and
>storm water systems, renewable and shared energy utilities, car sharing
>co-ops, streetcars, and neighbourhood recycling centers. Would this not
>give substance to our claim that SEFC will be North Americas most advanced
>sustainable community? And if we don't do those things (and they are very
>much at risk) how can we make such a claim.
>
>And what better way is there to develop an Olympic village than for it to
>truly BE a village, comprised of the built expressions of hundreds of
>individual aspirations. One suspects that the alternative approach, where
>one developer builds a single project on a large parcel will be as much
>real village as Disney's Frontier Land is a real western town.
>
>The city could market test this idea at almost no risk. The Olympic
>Village area will most certainly be low-rise buildings and will be built
>first. Certainly, the City could subdivide two or three 5 acre blocks now
>to test this idea. What has the city to lose? It has sustainability and
>150 million dollars to gain!
>
>But the experts say otherwise. They say that 1 million is the most you can
>get and that the only building you can profitably sell in Vancouver is a
>high rise. They say that only tall buildings and big projects are
>marketable: "This is the market in Vancouver! That is what people want!"
>
>They say that, even though here I sit, on a demonstrably less attractive
>parcel of land, worth four times more than they are offering. I just do
>not get it.

Patrick M. Condon
UBC James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments
2357 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC Canada
V6T 1Z4
www.sustainable-communities.agsci.ubc.ca