"If Vancouver cannot house the people with families who work in the City but instead they must leave to afford to buy a home in one of the surrounding municipalities, Vancouver has just transferred its GHG impact outside its boundaries. But that impact should be accredited to Vancouver and it cannot claim to be the Greenest City without being able to house its workers."

Exactly! I couldn't agree more, Rosemary.

This is absolutely critical to Vancouver becoming the Greenest City! If Vancouver cannot house the people with families who work in the City but instead they must leave to afford to buy a home in one of the surrounding municipalities, Vancouver has just transferred its GHG impact outside its boundaries. But that impact should be accredited to Vancouver and it cannot claim to be the Greenest City without being able to house its workers.

There are so many effective ways to build affordable housing for moderate income people/families that Vancouver should consider e.g. the staircase model from the UK where a prospective owner buys the share of equity that they can afford and government (and sometimes another private sector partner) own the other portion of the equity. Over time, the owner buys more of the equity, essentially climbing a staircase to full home ownership.

We need to look to new models to provide affordable family housing! If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

Thanks Pavel - that is certainly the right question, and I look forward to your thoughts. Some ideas

1. Separate ownership of parking from ownership of house (this is done in Tokyo, parts of Boston, etc.). This allows people downtown to buy a place to live without having to pay for a car. People who need parking can buy the parking separately.
2. Encourage basement suites and greater density.
3. Allow for longer term mortgages
4. Greater density
5. More, many more, housing co-ops
6. Explore other alternate ownership models in addition to co-ops
7. Review tax system to see if there are hidden subsidies that lead to housing speculation

Other ideas?

Please propose a way to create affordable housing with respect to property rights and fair market values - without "forcing" anyone into anything.

@separate me: I'm kind of surprised, too. It makes me wonder if many of the people on these forums are child-free and therefore are able to find decent housing without too much trouble. Once you have children, you quickly become aware of the severe shortage of affordable family homes in this city.

Affordable housing, learning, transit, food ... all have to be a core part of a green Vancouver strategy. But what are the concrete steps we can take on this? Will more density help? Do we need to encourage more housing co-ops? Can we separate home ownership from parking space ownership, and stop requiring developers to put in parking? How do we make Vancouver an affordable place to live?

I can't belive more people haven't voted for this!
I guess everyone is a millionare out there looking to live in a greener Vancouver.
Vancouver will become less livable, diverse and interesting if there is limited housing for the majority of people who live or want to live in Vancouver.

I would like my children and grandchildren to be able to live in walking distance if they choose. Hard to do at today's prices. What are the best policies to achieve this?

Thanks, Steven. And agreed. It would be a tragic irony if we collectively created this beautiful, livable city, and then couldn't afford to live in it.

I will reallocate my votes to vote this up. The city will only reallybe sustainable if people can afford to live in it. It is critical to cultural creativity as well - artists, new immigrants, start-up companies and their underpaid workforces all need to be close to each other in a critical mass to create a vibrant and sustainable culture. We need a lot of creative thinking and new ideas here, and we need to design markets that work in favor of afforable housing and not against it.

@ripley: I meant to include that suggestion as well, but forgot and the system doesn't let you edit your original post. But I totally agree with you. For example, we need to rezone to allow for more infill housing, because right now the restrictions on laneway houses are prohibitive. And we need to allow these houses to be somewhat more than 700 square feet.

@Cecily: Understood. Rents in this city are crazy across the board, but at least there are a lot of one-bedroom units out there. Trying to even *find* -- much less afford -- a three-bedroom unit in this city is next to impossible. That's what my suggestion is trying to address. But I do think that there's room in the scope of planning for affordable housing to include child-free families.

It isn't only families with children who find it hard to afford living in the city. Some child-free families also find city living to be cost-prohibitive.

Yes, one-bedrooms are myopic planning in support of real-estate flippers rather than families and workers or students sharing to save on costs. Few of us can afford to buy or rent a one bedroom until midlife, then family and work-wise it's too late to just buy that so we move to the 'burbs.

I feel like you're ignoring the most obvious way to accomplish this goal: stop limiting the housing supply through draconian zoning bylaws. Affordable housing won't exist until we stop pretending that single-family homes are an efficient use of land, anywhere.

We really need more housing that can accomodate families in the city, otherwise couples will keep moving to the burbs when they have kids. These tiny 1 bedroom units that are built everywhere don't accomodate the changing demographics of the city.

YES please, to more 3-bedrooms in Vancouver! We're on multiple waiting lists for multiple co-ops and have been for several years. It's depressing how many families show up to co-op orientations hoping for a 3-bedroom unit...

If taking over whole buildings doesn't fly, perhaps a percentage of every new development should be set aside as city-owned rent-controlled spaces, much like how developers need to spend a percentage on public park space and public art...