Walkthrough: Rupert & Renfrew Plan Survey July'24

The big Rupert & Renfrew Area Plan is now in draft form and the City of Vancouver is looking for your feedback. Here's a simple guide to pushing them towards making housing in Vancouver more affordable and available. You can read the draft plan here. SURVEY CLOSES JULY 31st, ACT NOW!

Map of Tier 1 Areas in the draft plan

According to our city planners, the big moves in the Station Areas include:

  • Housing: Increase housing choice and affordability with new housing types and tenures. Apartment buildings will be allowed with heights tallest near the stations and tapering down as buildings get further away: up to 40 storeys closest to the stations, up to 25 storeys in Tier 2, and up to 20 storeys in Tier 3. Incentives encourage market rental and prioritize below market rental units: to build to 40 storeys the project must include 20% of units at below market rents.
  • Childcare: Provide incentives, like more height and housing units, to market rental housing developments that include childcare facilities.
  • Transportation: Improve accessibility and connectivity to the stations and across the plan area with improved existing rail crossings, new greenways, and wider sidewalks.
  • Shops and Services: Require ground-floor space for shops and services in new mixed-use buildings near the stations, at major intersections and along main roads. The shops and services could include shops, restaurants, pharmacies, or cafes with outdoor seating.
  • Protect Still Creek: Limit underground structures, including parkades, to maintain groundwater flows to Still Creek.

We generally encourage answering "Agree" or "Strongly Agree", as negative general responses will likely be interpreted as reinforcing NIMBY sentiment, even if you are really upset that the plan doesn't go far enough. In the most general terms, the housing policies in the plan have some very good elements and some concerning elements.

The plan proposes to allow 6-storey apartment buildings in most "missing middle" areas, which is a huge step in the right direction. Renters, and others who cannot afford a single-family home or duplex, deserve to be able to live away from arterial streets. The more concerning aspect of the plan is the way that the City intends to use "incentives," which are really artificial constraints on housing supply used to extract concessions from developers, thus raising the cost of market-rate housing and increasing market rents. Some of these incentives appear quite unlikely to have the apparently intended outcomes of getting extra amenities. E.g., it's quite likely that a developer would choose to build a 20-storey market-rate rental building rather than a 25-storey rental building with 20% of homes below market. History has shown that, at various scales, the demands of the City for extra density are quite often too high and result in fewer homes and fewer or no below market homes and amenity fees collected.

Here is a summary of the questions relevant to housing with suggested and example responses:

1. Answer Station Area Questions? Yes

2. Looking at the big moves and the future of the Station Areas do you agree or disagree that we are heading in the right direction? Strongly Agree

3. Comments on the above: Possible response:

The City should not rely on taxes on private housing development to create childcare spaces. These taxes often result in developers choosing to build less housing and thus reduces affordability.

Housing

We heard about the importance of housing affordability throughout the plan area. Draft Plan policies focus on expanding affordability in Station Areas by providing incentives for market rental, below-market rental, and social housing. This means allowing buildings with more height and housing units closer to the stations.

4. Do you agree or disagree that we should provide incentives for market rental, below-market rental, and social housing units in the Station Areas? Agree

Tier 1 Policies

5. Comments on above: Possible Responses:

Incentives should come from general revenues, not paid by market renters and new buyers by limiting housing. Costs imposed on building must be low enough that market rents can still fall.

The limits and incentives on density in the tier 1 & 2 areas seem overly restrictive and unlikely to deliver many below market homes.

The Tier 1 areas are quite small and the policies are complex and may not produce much over 20 storeys.

Why not allow 29 storeys as a base in areas without high groundwater? Why is the default to limit housing as much as feasible?

Shops and Services

During earlier engagement, we heard support for new retail options at station areas. In response, the Draft Plan will allow additional shops and services around the two stations, enabling them to become hubs of commercial activity. This will ensure more residents can access their daily needs within a short walk of the stations.

6. Do you agree or disagree with allowing more shops and services in Station Areas? Strongly Agree

Transportation

Create new and improved active transportation connections to increase access to the stations and surrounding shops and services. Improve safety and capacity of existing rail crossings for walking and biking. Additional proposed improvements include creating the Eastside Crosscut Greenway (along Lillooet and Nootka Streets), pursue new rail crossings at Nootka and Skeena, and new signalized crossings on Grandview Highway.

8. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed transportation improvements in the Station Areas? Strongly Agree
9. Comments on transportation: Could mention new RapidBus routes here, e.g. a North-South connection running on Renfrew.

Childcare

Childcare ranked as a high priority during earlier public engagement. The Draft Plan supports expanding childcare spaces in several ways, including as part of new market rental developments. To support the delivery of more childcare spaces in new buildings, the Plan proposes incentives allowing additional height and housing units for projects that provide childcare facilities.

10. Do you agree or disagree with the approach to incentivizing new childcare facilities by providing buildings in the Station Areas with additional height and housing units to secure these spaces? Agree
12. Use this space to share any other thoughts or ideas about the overall approach to Station Areas in Rupert and Renfrew: Possible Responses:
The incentives described above are really a tax on new housing that there is otherwise no reason not to allow. The City needs to re-orient policy towards actually reducing market housing costs.
I am concerned that this plan will result in fewer homes and few or no below market homes and childcare spaces, especially if it is successful and rents go down.

Next Page: Mixed Employment Area

No comments, answer this section if you are interested in jobs space and/or big box stores.

Next Page: 18. Still Creek Section

We generally encourage support of walking/biking trails, naturalization, and ecological corridors.

Note on 20. Daylighting Still Creek is not a cost of growth and should come from general revenues, not development cost levies or other fees.

Next Page: Villages

An illustration of a hypothetical Village neighbourhoods with a mix of housing types, street trees and a commercial street.

The Draft Plan includes three Villages: one at Renfrew and East 1st Ave, and two connected Villages at along 22nd Ave between Rupert and Renfrew. The Draft plan proposes to expand these small retail 'nodes' into complete neighbourhoods, adding opportunities for more shops and services, enabling missing-middle housing (including apartments up to six-storeys), renewing and expanding important community facilities, and providing more ways to move safely through the plan area.

25.  Do you want to provide feedback on the Villages? Yes

Big moves in the Villages include: 

  • Housing: Increase housing choice and affordability with new housing types and tenures. Allow 6 storey mixed-use buildings with 20% of units at below market rents along the commercial high streets. Allow a variety of housing options, from multiplexes to six-storey buildings, in areas surrounding the high streets. 
  • Streets and Transportation: Make it safer to walk and bike to and through the Villages by transforming Renfrew into a complete street with new or upgraded signals, adding corner bulges, seating areas and creating space for patios on 22nd Avenue, while maintaining existing large street trees and introducing new greenways  along 3rd Avenue and the Eastside Crosscut (at Nootka Street).
  • Shops and Services: Add new local-serving shops, services, and community spaces that could include grocery stores, pharmacies, salons, art studios, and cafes to create vibrant commercial high-streets at the centre of both Villages. 
  • Community Infrastructure: Renew and expand the Renfrew Park Community Centre and support the redevelopment of Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House to support recreational, cultural and community programs in both.
  • Parks and Open Space: Expand and update green spaces and parks in both Villages including turning the wading pool at Renfrew Park into a new splash pad. Create new plazas for gathering and small events in Village hearts as they develop.
26. Looking at the big moves and the future of the Villages do you agree or disagree that we are heading in the right direction? Agree

Housing

We heard the need for more housing choice for families and to support seniors aging-in-place, including for more affordable housing. In the Villages, the Plan proposes to incentive below market rental housing in 6 storey mixed-use buildings located close to shops and services, where no purpose-built rental options currently exist. These buildings will require a minimum of 20% below market rental units.

28.  Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to incentivizing below-market rental units in the Villages? Agree
29. Comments on Housing: Possible Response:
Below market housing is not a cost of growth and should be incentivized through general city revenues.

Next Page: Missing Middle and Multiplex Areas

A diagram showing six housing options, highlighting that missing middle housing includes duplexes, multiplexes, townhouses and low-rise apartments.

The Draft Plan provides additional opportunities for growth and change outside of the Station Areas, and the Employment Lands. Missing middle housing (i.e. low-rise apartments, townhouses, and multiplexes) is supported across the plan area in sites that are in walking distance to local amenities, including the Villages, while just multiplexes are currently allowed in all other areas.

A draft land use map showing where future land uses will be located in the Rupert and Renfrew Station Area.

35. Looking at the missing middle areas do you agree or disagree with the proposal to allow missing middle options like low-rise apartments, and townhouses in these areas? Strongly Agree

36. Comments on Multiplex Areas: Possible Response

6-storey apartments should be allowed everywhere on terms that are economically viable, even with lower rents than today.