Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[donk.]

Originally Posted by Infiniti

What separates NIMBYism vs opposing/raising legitimate concerns for the well being of a neighbourhood?

What would the members on here consider a valid concern(s) for the neighborhood?

Personally i cant think of any

[Great68]

IMO Jealousy. At least in terms of the people who make the Nimbyism claim.

There is a portion of those people who are just upset that someone else has something they don't, and care more about "sticking it to those 'rich homeowners' " in some way than actually listening to any rational arguments or addressing any valid concerns.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by Infiniti

What separates NIMBYism vs opposing/raising legitimate concerns for the well being of a neighbourhood?

I'm not sure what the line is though one is whether the concerns are fact based or not - most claims NIMBYs make are nothing but racist or classist arguments cloaked in gentler terms ("preserving character"). Once in a while they remove their masks and will actually say things about how they're better than others and just don't want to poor people (or other types) in the area (this literally will happen in city council meetings).

People have a right to be concerned about noise and crime and they probably have limited rights to be concerned about the impact to their own property but I don't think they have a specific right to reject housing that land is zoned for. They can vote for people who want to restrict housing the way they want but if the electorate wants more housing (and they OVERWHELMINGLY do) then they really don't have much ground to stand on. If they don't like it, they can move.

FWIW, I live in a one of the areas that BC has designated as a transit oriented development - it means that they can build 8 story apartments next door to me now. I may not love the idea of a 8 story building right next to me but I'd be a hypocrite YIMBY if I fought it. People have a right to housing and we all have to do our part to make this possible.

[noclue]

So if they built a 8 storey apartment and allocated the first 2 floors for low-income or a homeless shelter you'll accept it?

[bcrdukes]

Better yet, throw in a safe-injection site on the ground floor that operates 24/7.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by Infiniti

What separates NIMBYism vs opposing/raising legitimate concerns for the well being of a neighbourhood?

IMO if the neighbourhood change is limited to individual cases -- eg. your next door neighbour is building a 4-plex and you oppose it, then it is a fairly obvious case of NIMBYism.

This situation is actually happening to me because at 4 of my neighbours are rebuilt houses that massively increased the number of households occupying the same lot. I think 3 of them are big houses with a main unit and 2 basement suites, with one of them possibly having a laneway house as well. The other is a 4-plex. The presence of these houses have totally destroyed the street parking situation. I don't like it at all, but I can't complain because all this is happening on an individual basis over a span of 7 - 8 years.

On the other hand, a nearby neighbourhood received a proposal from the City to dramatically increase housing density last year. Currently, the neighbourhood is almost entirely comprised of low rise multi-family dwellings -- I'm not entirely sure whether they should be considered townhomes or low rise appartments, but let's say it's a mix of those two. One of the City's proposal was to turn the entire neighbourhood into 20-storeys high rises with some 20-30% of the new units reserved for social or supportive housing, but there was no indicated plans of upgrading any of the tiny neighbourhood streets to accommodate the additional traffic. IMO this proposal was absolutely disasterous for a multitude of reasons, including but not limited to massive congestion, gentrification, and totally changing the character of the neighbourhood. The local neighbourhood FB group flared up with a lot of opposition as well, and it seemed like a lot of people wrote back in response to the City's consultation request. Ultimately and thankfully, the plan was dropped by the City.

In thise case, I'd say the opposition wasn't a matter of NIMBYism. Instead, it had been shot down out of legitimate concerns for the well-being of the neighbourhood.

I'd say these 2 examples that I've cited are more clear cut, and there'd be 50 shades of gray inbetween these 2 rather obvious examples.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by bcrdukes

Better yet, throw in a safe-injection site on the ground floor that operates 24/7.

Your comment reminds me of the recent proposal and community opposition to the supportive housing program at 5389 Imperial -- basically the section between Macpherson and Royal Oak. The supportive housing project has been shot down, and for me, that was an obvious and unfortunate case of NIMBYism.

There was a lot of opposition from the community, and unsurprisingly, I know a large portion of that opposition came from the Chinese community. I consider this one to be a case of NIMBYism because the immediate area is really more of a light commercial / industrial area than anything else. If it was in a quiet residential neighbourhood, I can understand the opposition. But along that stretch of Imperial? Short of building the supportive housing right at DTES, I feel like areas like this (5389 Imperial) is as good a location as you can find these days.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2026/02/...ect-Goes-Down/

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by noclue

So if they built a 8 storey apartment and allocated the first 2 floors for low-income or a homeless shelter you'll accept it?

YES.

Would I have questions and concerns? Yes but I've got no problem with low income folks and I lived next to a supportive housing apartment building in Victoria for 5.5 years and it was a trouble free experience.

I was a vocal supporter of the supportive housing project at Imperial that was cancelled so it wouldn't be consistent of me if I didn't also say that I'm fine with that project being next door to me (for the record, the odds that it'd ever happen next to me are next to zero but it might make sense at the end of my block).

I live in a transit friendly area that naturally should be densified and densification brings with it resources and amenities - it's entirely unreasonable for me to expect my neighbourhood to not change as the city grows. If the densification doesn't work for me, that's on me and I should move.

[GLOW]

the key is the operator and how they manage it, as well as the resources to support them with said operations. if either fail/insufficient, you'll see the symptoms of that radiate to the surrounding area/community.

[Harvey Specter]

The misconception out there is that supportive housing equals crime. That isn’t entirely true. Not all supportive housing is filled with drug users or criminals. Much of it is for seniors and people with complex mental health needs who require specialized care.

And the issue on the westside is that it was historically protected and largely immune to affordable housing, but that has changed over the past 5 years as policies opened the door to more density. While there isn’t much supportive housing there YET, many new developments now include below market rental units. That means someone with an $8M mansion could end up next to an 8 plex, which will affect property values and change neighbourhood dynamics.

I think over the next decade, the westside will likely see the biggest changes since it’s one of the last areas in the city with large single family lots, making it easier to densify.