We can’t even expand a daycare in a residential neighboruhood in the heart of the city. These people want all the conveniences of a city without even the slightest cost. This is during a massive childcare shortage. Infuriatingly selfish.
Of note: one of the people in opposition is a former senior city planner. Which suggests a lot of NIMBYism and obstruction may have been coming from inside the city bureaucracy.
Another thing to note is that one of the opponents is a pro-density developer. I think what people don’t realize is that developers oppose medium density and mixed use rezoning because they profit from the housing shortage. They defend super low density SFH areas because it justifies expensive super high density glass towers on the tiny strips of land they’ve invested in. Big investor developers are on the same side as NIMBYs.
They defend super low density SFH areas because it justifies expensive super high density glass towers on the tiny strips of land they’ve invested in. Big investor developers are on the same side as NIMBYs.
That’s a really good point, I hadn’t considered before. It seems so obvious now. Of course big developers are in favor of preserving low density housing because it eliminates smaller developers that can’t build mega towers.
It keeps them in control.
Yes it blew my mind when I read about it too. Here is an article by Strong Towns describing some of the competing interests.
Type 1 and Type 2 developers are thus not reliable supporters of changes that would make the process of getting permission to build something simpler and more straightforward. Many of them prize their ability to be “big fish.”…
Whom do heavy regulatory burdens—high fees, strict parking and setback requirements, a long permitting process, or a lot of opportunity for delay or community opposition to force changes—fall upon most heavily? The smallest developers—Type 3—because these fixed costs do not scale with the size of the project.
It’s why when NIMBYs say building more supply to solve the housing crisis is a “developer talking point”, it drives me crazy.
Also, it’s why experts are advocating for Missing Middle construction. If small developers could build 3-4 story walk ups anywhere in the city at will without expensive community consultations and lobbying, we’d easily build enough supply very cheaply. Missing Middle zoning is why Montreal never had a housing crisis until the pandemic, despite being a bigger city with a growing population. Even now they have WAY more housing starts than Toronto or Vancouver.
one of the people in opposition is a former senior city planner. Which suggests a lot of NIMBYism and obstruction may have been coming from inside the city bureaucracy.
No, it means someone with a clue about how to plan a city - someone who’s studied it AS THEIR JOB - says it’s a bad idea.
When the experts say it’s a dumb idea, Karen doesn’t get her “8 now, 20 by 2024” cash cow.
I CAN CONFIRM that cities love daycares. They’re trying to open proper daycares as quickly as space allows. Weirdly, though, there may be regulations around the proper ones that slow it down.
No you cannot just defer to these city planners as “experts” when city planners themselves don’t always follow urban planning experts. Actual experts hate the suburbs of Phoenix, but that city also employs professional city planners.
Actual experts in urban planning are strongly in favour of middle density and mixed zoning. No other country in the world has as many limits on where things can be built as in Canada and the US. For example, a daycare can be built in almost any residential neighbourhood in Germany or France. In Canada, we follow a failed antique policy from the early to mid 1900s called Euclidean zoning that many academics are now opposed to. You will not find experts at UBC or SFU who agree with you, or with this city planner.
I CAN CONFIRM that cities love daycares.
Funny, because I am giving you a concrete example of Vancouver strongly not loving daycares. Most of our city is a cultural deadzone with zero commercial or cultural activity, and low density sprawl, all to defend the irrational whims of pearl clutching homeowners.