Davis Kyle
@daviskyle.bsky.social
https://www.kyleforkelowna.ca/
Procurement & Contract Analyst
Kelowna Area Cycling Coalition, Past President
Vice Chair of the RDCO Planning Advisory Committee
Prize-winning housing policy author
Views do not reflect those of my employer.
Procurement & Contract Analyst
Kelowna Area Cycling Coalition, Past President
Vice Chair of the RDCO Planning Advisory Committee
Prize-winning housing policy author
Views do not reflect those of my employer.
I personally would argue for perimeter block courtyards, which probably? Means firewalls and no side yards with bigger rear yards?
December 12, 2025 at 12:06 AM
I personally would argue for perimeter block courtyards, which probably? Means firewalls and no side yards with bigger rear yards?
I’ve got a poster purchased at the inauguration event hanging on my living room wall.
December 11, 2025 at 7:16 PM
I’ve got a poster purchased at the inauguration event hanging on my living room wall.
Reposted by Davis Kyle
The Vancouver code update doesn’t include part 9 either? It sounds like the province isn’t going to move on part 9 until it’s done, if it’s ever done, at a national level (maybe 2030).
It’s a big miss by the @bcndpcaucus.bsky.social as it would unlock more under SSMUH legislation.
It’s a big miss by the @bcndpcaucus.bsky.social as it would unlock more under SSMUH legislation.
December 11, 2025 at 3:45 PM
The Vancouver code update doesn’t include part 9 either? It sounds like the province isn’t going to move on part 9 until it’s done, if it’s ever done, at a national level (maybe 2030).
It’s a big miss by the @bcndpcaucus.bsky.social as it would unlock more under SSMUH legislation.
It’s a big miss by the @bcndpcaucus.bsky.social as it would unlock more under SSMUH legislation.
Reposted by Davis Kyle
3 Storey SES could work pretty easily in most places.
With an exterior 1100mm stair (Vs the big 5' stair in the BCBC) this would be doable. Could be combined with a low cost LULA elevator to provide an accessible alternative to multiplexes.
With an exterior 1100mm stair (Vs the big 5' stair in the BCBC) this would be doable. Could be combined with a low cost LULA elevator to provide an accessible alternative to multiplexes.
July 16, 2025 at 10:54 PM
3 Storey SES could work pretty easily in most places.
With an exterior 1100mm stair (Vs the big 5' stair in the BCBC) this would be doable. Could be combined with a low cost LULA elevator to provide an accessible alternative to multiplexes.
With an exterior 1100mm stair (Vs the big 5' stair in the BCBC) this would be doable. Could be combined with a low cost LULA elevator to provide an accessible alternative to multiplexes.
Thanks for the information.
One day we will drag these back into legality.
www.bostonpreservation.org/news-item/sh...
One day we will drag these back into legality.
www.bostonpreservation.org/news-item/sh...
A Short History of Boston’s Triple Deckers
A Short History of Boston’s Triple Deckers
www.bostonpreservation.org
December 11, 2025 at 5:16 PM
Thanks for the information.
One day we will drag these back into legality.
www.bostonpreservation.org/news-item/sh...
One day we will drag these back into legality.
www.bostonpreservation.org/news-item/sh...
It doesn’t include part 9? Oh jeez.
Thanks for the information. That’s very disappointing.
Thanks for the information. That’s very disappointing.
December 11, 2025 at 5:01 PM
It doesn’t include part 9? Oh jeez.
Thanks for the information. That’s very disappointing.
Thanks for the information. That’s very disappointing.
It would be good if they would just drop in the Seattle code, or something a bit more permissive.
The single stair rules as they stand are absurd for, say, 1-2 units a floor, 3 floors.
The single stair rules as they stand are absurd for, say, 1-2 units a floor, 3 floors.
December 11, 2025 at 6:09 AM
It would be good if they would just drop in the Seattle code, or something a bit more permissive.
The single stair rules as they stand are absurd for, say, 1-2 units a floor, 3 floors.
The single stair rules as they stand are absurd for, say, 1-2 units a floor, 3 floors.
Reposted by Davis Kyle
As a non-profit housing CEO, here's why the Social Housing Initiative mattered. It offered a real pathway to build homes for our neighbours in need, without half a million dollars in paperwork. Without 8-12 months of unnecessary delays for projects Council never rejects anyway.
December 9, 2025 at 11:20 PM
As a non-profit housing CEO, here's why the Social Housing Initiative mattered. It offered a real pathway to build homes for our neighbours in need, without half a million dollars in paperwork. Without 8-12 months of unnecessary delays for projects Council never rejects anyway.
Reposted by Davis Kyle
(Though they should remove vacancy control and IZ from their platform to improve financial viability, while adding DCC cuts).
Perhaps offsetting with a public builder or RFP process for new social supply.
Perhaps offsetting with a public builder or RFP process for new social supply.
December 9, 2025 at 7:43 PM
(Though they should remove vacancy control and IZ from their platform to improve financial viability, while adding DCC cuts).
Perhaps offsetting with a public builder or RFP process for new social supply.
Perhaps offsetting with a public builder or RFP process for new social supply.
(Though they should remove vacancy control and IZ from their platform to improve financial viability, while adding DCC cuts).
Perhaps offsetting with a public builder or RFP process for new social supply.
Perhaps offsetting with a public builder or RFP process for new social supply.
December 9, 2025 at 7:43 PM
(Though they should remove vacancy control and IZ from their platform to improve financial viability, while adding DCC cuts).
Perhaps offsetting with a public builder or RFP process for new social supply.
Perhaps offsetting with a public builder or RFP process for new social supply.
Very possible, yes.
It’s moreso a debate on whether the vacancy juice is worth the squeeze of making everyone do paperwork and investigating anyone thought to be lying.
There’s no ill-effect to it really.
It’s moreso a debate on whether the vacancy juice is worth the squeeze of making everyone do paperwork and investigating anyone thought to be lying.
There’s no ill-effect to it really.
December 9, 2025 at 5:14 AM
Very possible, yes.
It’s moreso a debate on whether the vacancy juice is worth the squeeze of making everyone do paperwork and investigating anyone thought to be lying.
There’s no ill-effect to it really.
It’s moreso a debate on whether the vacancy juice is worth the squeeze of making everyone do paperwork and investigating anyone thought to be lying.
There’s no ill-effect to it really.
In the year after San Francisco banned rent gouging software, rents surged.
It’s tangential. You can ban it if you want to feel better, but it doesn’t actually solve the underlying problem.
Same thing as vacancy taxes.
It’s tangential. You can ban it if you want to feel better, but it doesn’t actually solve the underlying problem.
Same thing as vacancy taxes.
December 9, 2025 at 4:58 AM
In the year after San Francisco banned rent gouging software, rents surged.
It’s tangential. You can ban it if you want to feel better, but it doesn’t actually solve the underlying problem.
Same thing as vacancy taxes.
It’s tangential. You can ban it if you want to feel better, but it doesn’t actually solve the underlying problem.
Same thing as vacancy taxes.