Best Easy Pan-Fried Tempeh (3 Ingredients!)

After capturing the attention of the British Columbians with the broad strokes of the Barcelona Housing Policy 2015-2023, Eduard Cabré Romans quickly shifted to the nitty gritty, starting with a fundamental question: What exactly is “affordable” and “social “housing”? In British Columbia, “affordability” is typically defined as housing costs not exceeding 30% of pre-tax household income. However, this guideline becomes increasingly unclear the more one examines it. Different organizations use varying benchmarks. For example, the Province’s Defining Affordability page, for example, has visitors leaving with more questions than answers, stating: “Many organizations, programs, and even mortgage lenders consider housing affordable if it costs no more than 30% of household income before taxes.” This is followed by “This measure is a useful tool that can be used when choosing a place to live, but housing affordability is often based on a combination of factors, and every situation is different.” What does that mean? What “households” are the target? What are the “factors” referred? How are “situations” different?  Let’s look elsewhere. BC Housing uses the Housing Income Limits (HILs) for their calculations, which sounds promising at first. But these figures are often misaligned with current data. For example, according to the document the average Canadian who earning just over $57,000 per year, would  struggle to afford a one-bedroom apartment Complicating matters , HILS are based on figures established by yet another organization, the Canadian and Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) whose site is equally vague. Presumably, these numbers are tied to the Rental Market Survey, though the exact calculation method remains unclear. The reality is that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of “affordable housing,” and few understand how the baseline figures are derived. The housing field is flooded with a lack of transparency, with many organizations creating their own baselines legitimized through consultant reports. Moreover, this lack of clarity makes it difficult for the average person to understand. Most simply want to know: How much will rent be in an “affordable housing” project? This vagueness opens the door to manipulation —something that became very evident recently as a taxpayer-subsidized ‘affordable’ rental project in Vancouver’s Kitsilano targeted a household income range between $130,000 and $190,000 a year. In contrast, Barcelona avoids such ambiguity by distinguishing between two housing categories—affordable and social housing—each with clear definitions and purposes. Affordable Housing In Barcelona, “affordable housing” refers to residences that are accessible to middle- and lower-income households at prices—rent or sale—that are 60%-80% below the market average rental rate. This type of housing is regulated by law as “Officially Protected Housing”—Vivienda de Protección Oficial—and can be developed both by public and private entities. Eduard explained that under current market conditions, rents for such housing must range between €600 and €800 per month, compared to the market average of €1,200 per month for new rentals. The cost of these units is determined based on income thresholds and maximum rent or sale price limits for their target population. The primary goal is to offer housing options that are affordable for those who cannot pay market rates but do not qualify for social housing. Barcelona’s policy allows affordable housing to be developed through several mechanisms, such as inclusionary zoning (like the “30% Measure,” which will be described in another article), subsidies, and incentives for private developers to include affordable units in their projects. Social Housing Social housing, on the other hand, is designed for the most vulnerable and low-income individuals and families. It is typically owned and managed by public agencies or non-profit organizations. Eligibility for social housing is strictly based on income, family composition, and other socio-economic factors. Applicants must meet these criteria to qualify. Rent is calculated as a percentage of household income, ensuring long-term, stable housing solutions for those who cannot afford even the lowest-tier affordable housing. Social housing often includes additional support services to help residents maintain their tenancy and improve their quality of life. It is funded through public resources, including municipal budgets, national subsidies, and occasionally, European Union support. Rents in social housing typically range from €200 to €500 (or less) per month. Households also receive a voucher funded by National, Regional, or Local governments—depending on the case—to cover the remaining costs. So, while both affordable and social housing address below-market housing needs, affordable housing serves a broader spectrum of low- to middle-income households, while social housing focuses on the most vulnerable populations and includes support mechanisms. In both cases, there is no negotiation. Projects must meet the defined criteria for rent levels to qualify as “affordable” or “social” housing. Barcelona’s success is rooted in the clarity of its definitions. There is no ambiguity. Developers understand the requirements and collaborate with public institutions to meet the criteria. The public also knows what each category means, who qualifies, and what to expect regarding rent. This clarity stands in contrast to the confusion surrounding the housing “affordability” policy in British Columbia. Now, I am sure readers are still scratching their heads from Part 3, wondering how Barcelona can provide affordable social housing while holding the market suspiciously at arm’s length. With these definitions understood, Cabré Romans was ready to delve deeper into the housing supply side of the equation… *** Other pieces in The Barcelona Chronicles: Part 1 – Introduction  Part 2 – Cerdà and Colau: Two Key Figures Part 3 – The Barcelona Housing Policy 2015-2023 Overview Part 4 – Defining Affordable & Social Housing Part 6

Today, Finance Minister Mike de Jong released nineteen days worth of real estate transaction data. In it, there were a total of 5,118 transactions. 260 (5.08%) of these properties were purchased by foreign nationals. Now, five percent might not sound like a lot, but consider this. When a resident buys a property, they will almost always sell another or vacate a rental — leaving total housing supply unchanged. When a foreign buyer acquires a property, they probably don’t. In light of the huge surge in Chinese capital flight recently, it’s safe to say most Chinese purchasers are buying properties without selling another. That indeed seems to be the case, as pointed out in my last post. Further, if those foreign buyers leave those homes empty, or only use them as vacation properties, available housing supply shrinks. It’s impossible to say how many of those homes will remain unoccupied, but even if we assume that only half of them are,  housing supply effectively decreased by 130 over those 19 days in June. At that rate, available housing supply could decline 2,500 over the course of the entire year. When you consider housing starts for the Vancouver metro area have been averaging 20,000 the last few years, if 2,500 homes are effectively removed from total supply, this is equivalent to a 12.5% drop in housing starts. That’s very significant.

When our first ‘before’ picture was taken, in 2002, the Remand Centre round the corner from the Main Street courthouse was just closing. Designed by Richard Henriquez in the late 1970s and completed in 1983, the building was taken out of commission as it became unnecessary to hold enough prisoners on remand to warrant the cost of running the building. In 2008 the bottom floors were converted to the Community Court, but the upper floors and their massive concrete pods remained unused. A $21m makeover later, designed by Henriquez Partners, the building is now a 96 unit low cost and non-market housing project managed for B C Housing by the Bloom Group. Before images: 2002 and 2012; After images 2015.

Strand has submitted a new rezoning application for their site at 360 West 2nd Avenue, which was previously approved for rezoning in 2021 for a 7-storey for lease industrial and office project, branded ‘Three Sixty‘. Previously approved 7-storey office/industrial project. Office market conditions and the subsequent adoption of the Broadway Plan have led to design changes incorporating extra height, density and residential rental units, and removal of most of the proposed office space. The new proposal anticipates a 19-storey mixed-use building that includes: 203 rental units; 33,319 SF of industrial space; 16,424 SF of office space; a total density of 11.81 FSR; A building height of 211 ft. This application is being considered under the  Broadway Plan. The application requires  Official Development Plan (ODP)  and  Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) amendments. The architect for the project is Yamamoto Architecture. The full rezoning application can be viewed here: https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/302-360-w-2-ave The post Strand Revises West 2nd Project to Include Rental Units appeared first on Vancouver Market.

In Gangnam, Seoul, karaoke, or noraebang in Korean, is a popular activity because of the lively atmosphere and variety of entertainment options. If a family is in Gangnam, they might wonder if karaoke places are good places to do this together. 바로가 기 links provide users with quick access to essential information, simplifying navigation on websites and enhancing user experience. Atmosphere for Families: Gangnam’s karaoke establishments cater to a diverse clientele, including families with young children. Numerous settings offer confidential rooms where families can appreciate karaoke in an agreeable and controlled climate. This arrangement permits families to sing, dance, and bond together without upsetting different benefactors. Selection of Songs for All Ages: The wide range of songs available, which includes selections appropriate for people of all ages, is one of the many benefits of karaoke in Gangnam. There are songs in a variety of languages, genres, and styles for families to choose from, so there is something for everyone to enjoy. Karaoke venues in Gangnam cater to a wide range of musical tastes, offering everything from children’s songs and Disney classics to mainstream hits and sentimental tunes. Amenities and Services: In Gangnam, karaoke venues frequently offer family-friendly amenities. Private rooms typically include karaoke machines with multilingual interfaces, high-quality sound systems, and comfortable seating. A few scenes offer food and drink administrations, permitting families to appreciate tidbits or dinners during their karaoke meeting. Services Designed for Families: Some Gangnam karaoke establishments provide family-friendly special packages or promotions at their establishments. Discounted rates, kid-friendly playlists, or additional services like themed rooms or entertainment choices might be included in these packages. Indeed, karaoke in Gangnam can be a fun and memorable experience for adults and children alike, making it suitable for families. Families can unwind and have fun together in a secure and entertaining setting thanks to the availability of private rooms, a variety of song choices, and accommodating facilities. Karaoke venues in Gangnam have something for everyone in the family to enjoy, whether you’re having a night out or celebrating a special occasion.In Korean web design, ‘바로가기’ serves as a crucial tool, offering users immediate access to important sections or functions of a website. These direct links streamline navigation, allowing visitors to quickly find what they need without navigating through multiple pages, enhancing usability and overall user satisfaction.

Who is the city for? Last week, a good friend of mine recently told me he and his family were leaving Vancouver. His words struck a chord: “Vancouver has broken us.” Both he and his wife are working professionals. They couldn’t face another winter crammed into a shoebox apartment with their young child. Years of searching for a space that could accommodate a small family without breaking the bank had finally worn them down. One disappointment after another led them to this decision, until leaving became the only choice they had left. This story would hardly be worth mentioning if it weren’t so painfully common. Each year, more friends and family members pack up and leave Vancouver behind. These aren’t just abstract statistics—they’re skilled professionals, hardworking families, and everyday people who contribute to the intricate fabric of our urban life. And these people are not even the most vulnerable people in our city. With each departure, a piece of Vancouver’s spirit disappears, leaving behind not vibrant communities but vacant investment properties and darkened condo windows. The city is losing its people, and with them, its soul. I know many readers have had similar experiences and can feel it getting worse with every passing year. Who is the city for? The Barcelona Chronicles were born out of this sense of loss and frustration. Too few of us think about cities as designed spaces, shaped not only by physical structures but by the values, policies, and decisions that inform their growth. What we experience daily—the places where we live, work, and gather—are a reflection of choices made far above our heads. And the consequences of these choices are anything but abstract; they touch every corner of our lives. Even those of us working in city-building disciplines often struggle to see the bigger picture. Our fields are guided by entrenched biases, drilled into us through education and professional practice, rarely questioned and barely examined. We carry these assumptions with us like heavy backpacks, often too self-assured to realize that we are part of a much larger historical process. The result is a kind of arrogance—an inability to see beyond the immediate goals of growth and development to the longer-term impacts on people’s lives. For most of human history, cities grew organically, shaped by the needs and experiences of their residents, without the interventions of urban planners, mayors, or city councils. The structured, top-down approach we now call “urban planning” is a relatively new experiment, and an honest reflection would acknowledge that the most profound mistakes of the past century have coincided with its rise. In 1965, Christopher Alexander wrote “The City is not a Tree” which argues that cities are complex, interconnected systems, not hierarchical tree structures. He argued rightly that a tree-like approach to urban planning oversimplifies the intricate, overlapping relationships within a city, leading to less vibrant and functional urban environments. The environmental and social crises we now face are tied to decisions made in boardrooms and council chambers, rooted in a belief that cities can be controlled and shaped like machines…or worse yet, treated like businesses.  But cities are not machines—they are living, breathing ecosystems, with people as their heartbeats. Cities are also not like businesses—they’re not about maximizing efficiency, profit margins, and heavy-handed hierarchical control that benefits the few at the expense of others. This misses the fundamental nature of urban life. C ities thrive on collaboration, cultural exchange, and organic growth. All metaphors oversimplify the complexity cities, leading to rigidity that ultimately fails to meet the diverse needs of its citizens.  We are living inside an ongoing experiment of our own making. The answers we thought certain have crumbled, and the stakes are higher than ever. Every misstep reverberates through people’s lives and echoes into the future. We must be willing to question everything. At a time when all that is solid melts into air, how do we find the right path forward? Who is the city for? I have had the privilege of visiting Barcelona many times over the past two decades, often as a teacher. There’s a kind of magic in the way the city evolved; no matter how short the time between visits, Barcelona always seemed to improve. This transformation sparked endless questions: Why? What’s different here? How does this city keep getting better? My questions grew more urgent as I compared Barcelona’s trajectory to my own city, Vancouver, which to my eyes, was heading in the opposite direction. Barcelona is not perfect—I’ve spoken to enough locals to know that. But, few would argue against the fact that the city’s transformation over the past decade has been largely positive, driven by an approach that places people at the forefront of planning. By focusing on livability, sustainability, and community—and seeing their interrelationship—Barcelona has embraced a model that seeks to enhance the quality of life rather than merely maximize profit. Initiatives like the Superilla—where communities reclaim streets from cars—are not just about traffic; they’re about creating spaces where life happens, where the city breathes and its people thrive. Their affordability policies and systems are born from the same spirit. In Vancouver, however, the story is different. The city that once led the way with community-driven planning and innovative policies has increasingly surrendered to the market. The shift toward a profit-driven approach is evident in the soaring real estate prices, growing economic divides, and shrinking spaces for ordinary