Thanks for your gross oversimplification. In fact, no one is suggesting we don't add massive density, but like any project, people have views about how it should best be done. I know residents caring about their community is antithetical to the YIMBY doctrine, so it must be hard to watch.

This site was rezoned for 37 units in November and now it's being flipped for another land assembly. Vancouver land inflation in action thanks to Vancouver city council planning policies. 🙄

Wow! One of your very best.

Packed hall to hear speakers talk about the insane level of densification planned for the Jericho Lands as well as the Broadway Plan. Residents are concerned, but ABC just don’t care. There is only one solution. Remember to vote for a party who will do something about this.

Searing and emotional speech from Rebecca Bligh calling out the party she was kicked out of for standing up for the city's most vulnerable. 👏👏👏 Must watch. www.youtube.com/live/gNil1VS...

These theories do not accurately capture the high cost of not providing needed parking. They only consider one side of the issue. Like saying we could build more housing if we didn’t waste space with kitchens.

No, we have to get away from this binary approach. I believe we can reasonably and respectfully do both.

As I say, I support more options as you describe, but to do so in ways which also respect the feel of the hood and existing residents, which is totally doable.

Yeah, this is good, but how much of this is being encouraged?

My only issue is where a single house gets sandwiched between two much larger buildings. I think it needs to be sensitive to that, as you have pictured here. It’s why I prefer land assemblies or at least end of block.

Do you not think that 1 bed demand will be met with the many thousands of units in the works right now? Do we really need to be planning for so many more?

Yes, we are ignoring this vital need and instead building so much which is not designed for long term family living. We need the full range. How do we make policy which helps create that?

Sorry, you lost me.

Exactly. These are not long term homes. They are for a certain time in life and then people need to move on as they grow. We need some of that, but not the amount which is being built. People need space and if they don't get it, they will move further out.

Your clients idea of more compact homes are not the micro suites in the towers Danny is referring to, believe me. I fully support the kind of "compact" homes you are building for your clients.

That's like saying Disneyland gets loads of visitors so we should make our city like Disneyland. Venice is amazing, but not how people want or can live here. We are not going to change Vancouver into Venice or Disneyland. Reality does not support your wishes. Car ownership is trending up, not down.

Nope. People want cars. No evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm saying to study how much parking is truly needed and reduce accordingly because yes, there are some like you, but who are not. You only have to look around you or at the actual data.

The winner for most eye rolling line, "people who prefer more compact homes". 😅

Anyway, I am advocating for considerable density increases on quiet streets, just not towers. We can add more housing than we can possibly need without towers everywhere.

There is so much nonsense in Danny's article my head is spinning, but I note that he refers to a community group view from over 20 years ago. This is a tired habit of drudging up some ridiculous thing someone once said a long time ago and acting like it is policy today.

Sure, but reality is public transit. Bike use is so tiny and it's already very easy to get around on a bike here, but building bike storage is easy and good. Car ownership is not going down. That's reality and as I say, if you even own one...

Can you point to a single current policy online which demonstrates this?

As I say, not against revising the minimums as appropriate.

So do real analysis and build the parking which is needed. Build less if it is found that many stalls sit empty, and if you think people should not have cars, then start with yourself and get rid of your car. Hard to take the comment seriously when you yourself continue to have one.

"Towers to shield SFH" is one of those nonsense ideas blown up because maybe someone once said it 50 years ago. It's not why we build towers.

3 sides of a tower do not face arterial and they can also be set back. Most units are not subject to noticeable pollution or noise.

You say "revisit the BP when...", so sure, but there are a whole host of other reasons to pause and reconsider the way the Plan is designed. It should't be about one single building code adjustment.

I find it odd that you do not want densification on arterials. So nothing? Keep it one story?

Thanks. I think there is some common ground and room for discussion. You want no parking in buildings and I don't see how so many cars can just fit on the street. Kits streets are already jammed with cars, so where do they go? You might wish no one had a car, but people have them. Don't you?

Yesterday I was on @CBConthecoast with Broadway Plan tenant victim, Teresa Alfeld. We talked about the doc I am making and #broadwayplan issues.

www.cbc.ca/listen/live-...

Would appreciate comment from my trucker friends on this. Wait, I don't have any trucker friends. 🫤

First almost all candidates meeting in Point Grey tonight. ABC candidate missing because they have not declared yet. Interesting to see alliance on a number of issues from all candidates present. Consensus, in particular, on dissatisfaction with ABC. #vanpoli

Absolutely, but I mean at the time, because as regards the Broadway Plan, we are now at this time.