With the creation of the developed areas guidebook and a new land use bylaw we should be in a position where the rules of infill development should be compatible with policy direction the City wants to move toward. Right now it is easier at times to gain approval for a sprawl subdivision than a single inner city fourplex. That’s obviously untenable and typical of government getting everything wrong and overcomplicating via over regulation. My critique of the guidebook, despite staff protestations, is that it doesn’t reflect the market desire for housing that we know is real today. Staff says it is flexible to adapt as market trends shift. I say it isn’t compatible with the market now. Perhaps the new land use bylaw will change this. My views on the current bylaw is it makes designers spend most of the effort on compliance and little of it on creativity, this is to our mutual detriment.

what I want to see is more options to create (smaller lot not skinnier lot) single family detached housing in established areas. Communities tend to want to create enclaves where the lucky few get to live in tranquility as the planning department acts as agents of value conservation on their behalf, ring fencing the ‘valued’ areas with undesired ‘dense’ housing, i.e. people. What I don’t want to see is the only option to build detached housing is on 50 ft lots by doing skinny singles. I don’t see demand for unnaturally narrow accommodation. We need more ways to divide property that makes sense. Common garages, less garages, alley activation, creative splits of larger lots yes. Not rigid bylaws that crush creativity and push all the builders to just copycat each other. That’s what we have today.