Ryan Jabs
@ryanjabs.bsky.social
230 followers 500 following 94 posts
Dad who's fascinated by urban planning. Runner of a small #YYJ home development company. Trying to build the right things. www.lapishomes.com Art by Elizabeth Upton (https://www.instagram.com/living.whimsically.rocks?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&)
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted by Ryan Jabs
lanefab.com
@jwhiteyvr.bsky.social kicks it off.

“We have a [vancouver] planning system that is great at extracting $ from development, but not as good at delivering enough housing “
Talks about all the knock on impacts of housing shortages, everything from hiring to people staying in abusive relationships.
Reposted by Ryan Jabs
coachbalto.bsky.social
What an unforgettable afternoon with
#BensonBoone on the
#BikeBus!
The energy, the smiles, and the singing made it a ride we'll never forget.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
Ah, Fernwood would be another spot it might work. Maybe parts of downtown. Thinking James Bay, but there are a lot of buildings there that have a lot of differed maintenance already.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
I think just allow commercial everywhere so we have more of these cool districts. If businesses can move, landlords are less likely to raise rents beyond their costs plus a little profit, & when there’s additional vacancies, rents come down (see Victoria resident rental prices).
ryanjabs.bsky.social
It’d probably work in some pretty unique areas like oak bay village where we want to preserve a shopping street. Not many I can think of in Victoria. Cook street seems like a good example but there’s not a lot of heritage there and most of the buildings have been redeveloped.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
Commercial rent caps in some areas might be effective as it might reduce the appreciated land price, but the caps may also just lead to buildings falling into disrepair and eventually having to be replaced or in the worst case, where they can’t be replaced, just boarded up.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
Old buildings are really expensive to maintain, often having a lot of differed maintenance that new owners have to deal with when the properties sell. New owners also pay quite high prices as the land appreciated significantly, which leads to higher rents to cover the land price.
Reposted by Ryan Jabs
leospalteholz.bsky.social
The rationale behind our 154% duty is to protect local manufacturing. I get that.

But even with that in place there is just very little manufacturing of panels in Canada. Its around 1000 jobs in the whole country vs tens of thousands in install / servicing we could gain if solar was a lot cheaper
leospalteholz.bsky.social
This is how cheap our solar could be if we didn’t tax it like cigarettes

This system would cost over $30k in Canada vs $8500 in Australia
ryanjabs.bsky.social
1. Is pretty intriguing if they mandate a certain minimum buildable area. That could address setbacks, open space, lot coverage, etc.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
The extra 5 X 20ish feet added about $200K to my total build cost, but that's offset by the little bit of extra revenue the 2-beds generate. It also opened my building up to a couple of families with a child. No new babies yet, but there's certainly an option. Definitely worth it.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
I had 2 window walls in this little 3-storey PBR, with 5 extra ft of length on one side. That allowed me to redesign 4 1-beds into 4 2-beds. I love the large one-beds in this building, but the 2-beds are more flexible. Unfortunately, my footprint was closely scrutinized so I couldn't do both sides.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
It’s this craziness that led to CMHC’s “standardized” sixplex design where they split the staircase inside and outside the building so the doors were only 1.5m above grade. It illustrates how dumb the rule is as this is a less safe design.

www.housingcatalogue.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/designs/bc/c...
Courtyard Sixplex
www.housingcatalogue.cmhc-schl.gc.ca
ryanjabs.bsky.social
It’s almost impossible to fit secondary exits into stacked townhouses without doing silly inefficient things so we typically sink them.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
I can’t say for certain as I can’t see the floor plans, but I don’t think you’re going to eliminate this issue even if Van allows another meter or 2 height. The ridiculous bc building code requires a secondary egress for all units built under part 9 if the home’s door is more than 1.5m above grade.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
100%. This is one of the poison pills in Victoria’s OCP and related policies. Their open space, storm and tree location requirements + setbacks make parking impossible to build unless it’s $$$ and climate killing underground, but they’re also charging significant fees if a builder doesn’t build it.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
Code writers unfortunately don’t understand that relatively minor “low cost” changes introduced every few years add significant costs as industry and inspectors have to constantly catch up to the new code and suppliers and labourers add money to compensate for the added risk of missing something.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
They’re getting a lot less bang for the buck so homelessness and related deaths and public costs (to the Canadian health care system) rise because we can’t build enough even with the significant public (and private) investments.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
In B.C., it’s even more insane as senior governments are spending more and more on massively needed public housing while constantly introducing new code and technical requirements, mostly on multifamily, with very limited incremental benefits for the added costs.
Reposted by Ryan Jabs
stephenjacobsmith.com
I can't stop thinking about this. We're pursuing zero fire risk in multifam, while tolerating much more in single-fam. People respond by building and living in single-fam, where they're exposed to not only one of the highest fire death risks in the developed world, but also TONS more car crash risk
ebwhamilton.bsky.social
Love this new report on buildings' relative fire safety from @alexhrwtz.bsky.social and Pew colleagues.

www.pew.org/en/research-...
ryanjabs.bsky.social
Absolutely. Province said they were working on a part 9 single staircase option (probably no elevators), which is a no brainer with sprinklers, but it’s been over a year and nothing yet, so we’ll see. I could see that possibly working in Victoria’s zone. The lanes in Van unlock a lot more potential.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
I’ve heard from a smaller builder he might try variances for six storeys version to make them pencil. I don’t think staff will support that as the OCP says lot assemblies and larger housing blocks if five or six storey. They even seem to have leeway to reject 4 storeys to avoid “orphaning.”
ryanjabs.bsky.social
I’m curious to see if anyone will try this. The taxes, open space, new DCCs, high TDMs, storm water and tree bylaws will make it really challenging to pencil a 4 storey building. We may see it in higher cost neighbourhoods as higher end homes w/ underground parking to limit risk/offset the tdm tax.
ryanjabs.bsky.social
I still don’t quite understood why, but this is the type of building still very much frowned upon in @victoria.ca’s newly adopted official community plan.

12 family sized homes in one smaller building would allow community to form, but the city unfortunately does not want it.
lanefab.com
The New Vancouver Special - 50' lot edition.

Accessible single stair flats on a 50x122 lot.
12 family size homes (or) 24 small units.