Development of Heritage Neighborhoods (Granville, Yaletown, Chinatown, etc.)
 

Now that Vancouver is taking a look again at the maximum density and heights for Granville Entertainment District and Chinatown, I think we should move the discussion for those to a new thread.

I've also decided to make a poll to ask what heritage sites should be opened for development, since the debate seems to be dividing people here.

Note that façade preservation may be allowed for heritage site redevelopment.


These areas are:
- West End 'Villages' (Robson Village, Denman Village, Davie Village)
(not officially heritage, but treated similarly)
- Gastown
- Chinatown
- DTES/Japantown/Strathcona (development is allowed in the DTES 'core' corridor, but not in the fringe areas.)
- Yaletown Historic District
- False Creek South (not a historic district, but there's a push to preserve it)
- Granville Entertainment District
- Shaughnessy (lol)

Done.


Do realize that 4 FSR is ~12 Stories on Broadway...

For context:
Townhouses are 1.2 FSR (max), while single-family homes are around 0.75 FSR.
The 'removal' of the SFH zoning across BC allows for 1 FSR (max).

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/housi...s-brochure.pdf
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/norqu...house-zone.pdf

Also,
Olympic Village is 2.7 FSR.
Concord Pacific Place is 3.7 FSR.
Sen̓áḵw is 11 FSR.


To be fair, most of those areas are in the 'town centers'.
Burnaby's bus network is kind of iffy as well. Not as much as say, Langley or Maple Ridge, but not the best in terms of design either.
Some route choices are pretty questionable.

Why not now, though?
I pointed out that it's extremely high-quality land (in theory), in terms of access, and if you're going to develop it eventually, why are you going to wait another decade or two?


The problem with that is that you're never going to have 100% 'densification' in any 1 neigborhood.
There's going to be lots that owners stubbornly refuse to develop densely (eg. SAP warehouse) or delay development, or developments that get stuck in limbo (eg. Concord NEFC).

Metro Vancouver points this out, stating that we need a certain level of 'excess' vacant land because not all the vacant land will ever be used at any given time, so even with infinite demand, the actual amount of vacant land will eventually plateau out.
Warehouses are not condos, as the former are less flexible in terms of land size, but still:




There's a couple remaining parkades and surface parking lots (though ironically, the largest are in the 'historic districts' (mainly Yaletown and Chinatown)), yes, but this isn't the 80s or 90s, when the CBD was surrounded by a sea of old former industrial lands and low-density commercial buildings- ie. where Surrey is today.

Also remember that it takes a while for these sites to get full approval and be developed.


Vancouver Downtown growth is slowing down due to being relatively built out:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/down...res-statistics
Assuming 1.5 people per unit, you'd be consuming that entire 'reserve' of units in roughly 15 years at Toronto downtown 'growth' rates. (TBH, ~30,000 units, as you state, seems high, considering that's 5 Senakws- and that's super dense.)

This doesn't include Broadway (as stated above), but still.
It's not a race, but it does indicate the opposite of what you're saying.

FSR: Floor/Space Ratio; in order to get twelve floors on Broadway, you need to reduce the first four through setbacks, greenspace or other means. Yaletown’s warehouses apparently take up the entire site, and are four floors on average, so 4 FSR.

Royal Oak isn’t a town centre, but is starting to get redeveloped en masse; Imperial’s got one of the city’s busiest, most frequent buses, but isn’t. Compared with Broadway and Cambie - where everything within a 700-900m radius of SkyTrain was bulk-rezoned no matter what it was - Metrotown, Brentwood, Royal Oak, Edmonds et al have grabbed all the lowrise apartments and warehouses within 500-600m of the station/malls... and stopped. So Burnaby’s growth is less about density and affordability, and more about redevelopment money while protecting NIMBY homeowners. That's not a model Vancouver should follow.

Is there a rush? There’s no shortage of glass towers in the CoV, but if you gut a indie/hipster business district and the buildings and workspaces that attracted them there, you’re probably not getting them back - ditto Gastown.

Gastown is a National Historic Site. Chinatown is also a National Historic Site. (That's the same as Fort Langley)

Senakw’s FSR is 8.75 (4m sq ft on 10.5 acres).

That's a lower density than most current Vancouver and West End projects. The Landmark is 9.5 FSR, Burrard Place 2 is 15.3 FSR (and Burrard Place 1 was 18.4). The social housing Ismaili Centre on Richards is 13.9 FSR. Bosa's 1040 and 1080 Barclay rental towers will be 15.4 FSR, and the Kengo Kuma tower on Alberni is 14.2 FSR. Curv, next to The Butterfly is approved at 24.7 FSR.

Comparing Vancouver's Downtown to others is irrelevent to how much will be built in Vancouver. Toronto's downtown is much bigger. Edmonton's is hardly growing at all.

The development capacity I listed are all current projects, or where developers have acquired the site and indicated an intention to develop. There are many others beyond that - The Bay Parkade - the parking lots on either side of The Penthouse Club - the notorious vacant site on Robson for example.

As Migrant says, you don't need to mess with the heritage areas, the character areas, or the shopping villages yet. There's many years capacity in Downtown and the West End, and we're seeing higher density nodes now around the city at Marine, Oakridge, Joyce, along Broadway , etc. etc. so decisions to preserve the heritage areas (or not) can be revisited in decades to come.

Shouldn't Strathcona be on this list? It is literally adjacent to downtown and is largely small woodframe buildings. It's funny how so many think developing highrises in Shaughnessy is a great idea but never mention Strathcona. :rolleyes:

The lot assembly required in Strathcona would be bonkers.

It IS.
Look at the poll again.

DTES (Hastings) is technically already zoned 30-story buildings.

It's on the list - you voted for it.

The 770 dwellings in Shaughnessey have an average FSR of 0.32, and lots are on average over 18,000 sq ft, so they could be developed with townhouses on a single lot, and quadruple the density. A stand-alone 25 storey tower on the lot could have only 25% lot coverage, huge setbacks, fabulous landscaping and in most cases 100 times the number of units that currently occupy the site. You could move the heritage house to one side, put the tower next to it, and still have lots of space. Here's a 33,000 sq ft lot, and only asking $10,880,000.

Strathcona is only 20% of the Shaughnessey area, and has over 1,500 units, and an average FSR of 0.72, so over double that of Shaughnessey already (and over ten times the units per hectare). The average lot size is 3,700 sq ft, and many are now stratas with separate ownership of laneway homes, so assembling a site big enough to develop would be tough, as GenWhy notes. There area also 4-storey SROs throughout the neighbourhood which would have to be replaced, which would make redevelopment more complicated. More expensive too - here's a 1901 opportunity but it's only a 3,050 sq ft lot, (standard for the area) so you'd need 11 of them to reach the size of the Shaughnessey lot, and at $1,489,900 it would be a 50% higher land cost (if you could ever get enough in a row to make up a site).

There are already new projects on the edge of the area, and redevelopment may come one day to some parts like Prior Street, but in the meantime the obvious opportunities are in the 1950s estates where 'slum clearance' built non-market housing with surface parking lots that are still in place.

Do all of these areas have historic district status or is this list somewhat arbitrary? There are other areas with strong character housing stock such as around City Hall, Grandview Woodlands, parts of Kitsilano and others.

Personally I would like to see some of the areas listed in this post get official Heritage Conservation Area protection. A neighbourhood like Strathcona has significant historic importance and provides a wonderful low density "escape" from the surrounding higher density. I think this will become increasingly appreciated as the surrounding area increasingly develops into towers. The core of the neighbouhood isn't that large and there's still plenty of development possible on the western edge.

The DTES needs development, so I would be open to heritage retention developments.

They are either officially 'historic' or are treated the same way for the same reasons in their zoning plans.

Is there anything in Stathcona that's not replicated in other lower-density neighborhoods (say south of Broadway, or Granville-Woodlands?)

You may notice all those towers you mentioned are West End towers, which has fewer restraints on viewcones.
As a result, they're abnormally dense vs most of the rest of Downtown.

And TBF, Senkaw is 11 when you remove the space taken up by the Burrard Bridge... :P

Yes- about 10-20 years on the Peninsula itself, especially as growth rates slow down as you develop more and more of the remaining 'easy' lots.

That's comparable to the amount of vacant land available for industrial purposes remaining in Metro Vancouver (discounting the massive industrial lots in Maple Ridge, which currently are of limited usefulness without a freeway to the area.) And that's a 'crisis'.

Unless you're going to push all future development near downtown onto the Broadway area (which DOES allow spot rezonings above the existing zoned density, unlike the West End Plan, thankfully) or change the West End Plan, you're still limiting the growth of Downtown.

I know. I'm using the Broadway Plan's FSR guidelines as a baseline. They add extra setbacks, but I don't think it's that big.

OK, fair enough. I would argue that the Flats and other industrial areas near town centers play that role to an extent, but I guess Yaletown is still 'working', unlike the Gastown, Granville, and Chinatown.

It kind of bothers me still that you have a completely artificial 'wall' of towers surrounding a bunch of old warehouses.
It's a very strange and surreal place in some ways walking around there.

Also, eventually, the hipsters/artists will end up being priced out (if they haven't already). A lot have been moving to Railtown for that reason (though, not sure if it's still the case with the increase in crime in the area.)


Well, that's because there was a lot of short-sighted cost-cutting with the original Expo and Millennium Lines- especially to avoid putting stations on curved areas or avoid demolishing properties (I'm glad to say this is less of an issue with the newer line segments.)

Two of those places where putting Royal Oak where it is today (Imperial Station would be on a curved site, and would be more expensive to place a station at) and Edmonds (same thing- it was originally placed closer to Middlegate.)

And I don't think Royal Oak's getting redeveloped that much. The zoning is mostly just medium density residential and commercial (and don't worry, the FARs for the different plans are similar:)
https://burnaby.widen.net/s/6j8kqqjwdc/lum---royal-oak

This is comparable to the Lochdale Plan (Burnaby East Hastings) (TBF, it's also a very new plan):
https://burnaby.widen.net/s/7cgdbdxr...d-use-map-2022

They're updating Royal Oak now, but I doubt they'll add much extra density (the industrial zoning kind of makes that impossible.)


The main place I think you can make the criticism that "Burnaby’s growth is less about density and affordability, and more about redevelopment money while protecting NIMBY homeowners" is Edmonds, which is now little more than a bunch of condo towers spaced around a SkyTrain Station with little nearby services.

But then again, that 'Town Centre' was probably doomed the day it was designated...it has a very poor location due to the aforementioned cost-cutting.

Is it any more unusual than Greenwich or East Village? Not all of downtown has to be uniformly tall all at once. Playing devil’s advocate, one could argue that all the Ctrl-V’ed Nineties condos are the anomaly, and that density should’ve been spread out around the downtown core instead of just handing Concord a blank cheque, making the “warehouse district” less of a sore thumb.

Maybe they’ll be priced out, maybe they won’t – either way, the housing crisis isn’t so serious that we need to evict them right this decade.

Point is that pretty much every one of Burnaby’s plans have Grand Bargain written all over them. You’ll want to look at the Royal Oak map again and see where the townhomes are going: all the places that’re already zoned for multifamily, while most of the SFHs around them are left as-is... despite Gray and Oakland Streets being closer to the SkyTrain than Gilley. If the end goal is affordability and supply, Burnaby Council’s got a real funny way of showing it.

Bringing the analogy back to the CoV, there's still plenty of low density in the surrounding neighbourhoods like Strathcona, Chinatown and the Flats (which aren't doing so well) that can be built out before we need to reconsider Yaletown (which is).

In London?

They did with the buildings between Pacific and Cambie and the Historic district, which are lower-density than the Concord lots.

Also, the City did interfere a lot with the Concord developments- as Concord originally wanted to completely redesign the False Creek Waterfront into a set of islands.

The CoV actually went out of its way to prevent a the towers from having a lower standard height from:
(Concord's original 'lagoons' plan):
https://spacing.ca/vancouver/wp-cont...bert-group.jpg

I don't think it would have been better for Yaletown to have been Olympic Village North with islands.

Next decade?

Royal Oak is also an older plan, hence why it's being redone. Lochdale is more representative of the way they think nowadays.

NYC. At last check, Greenwich and East are considered two of the most vibrant parts of the city.

Horrible planning, but the islands actually look somewhat cool. But no, I'm talking about north of Homer and Nelson: take out all the condos, and what you have left is pretty much what Vancouver used to look like. The downtown core effectively jumped from four floors to forty overnight.

Whichever decade is when it becomes too expensive for a craft brewery or an art studio, the developers can move in, no problem. That decade is not this one.

That seems to be an exception rather than a rule - you look at Sperling-Burnaby Lake (which actually has a SkyTrain), and it's the Grand Bargain again.

No I deliberately mentioned towers Downtown too. Burrard Place isn't in the West End, neither is Richards Street. There will be a 14 FSR tower once the Granville Loops. Several NEFC towers will be over 11 FSR.

I don't get it. Do you think Downtown shouldn't have expanded into Yaletown?

Ok, fair enough.

https://burnaby.widen.net/s/k6vxp6fx...community-plan
Has 5-10 story apartments on the SFHs between Ellersliie and Buffallo.
Sure, you probably should have moved the density from the industrial areas around the intersection of Winston and Bainbridge to Broadway, but TBF, Broadway's also on top of a hill.

The areas fronting Lougheed from the north are also multiplexes, not multi-family dwellings.

But seriously, why?

Why should all of the places that have a particular "character" have the thing that gives them character removed?

Think of your first (architectural) mental picture of many cities around the world - London, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Mexico City, Taipei, Dubai, Cairo, Brisbane...if the excuse is "we need to add more people to these cities", would you pick the exact places that came into your mind just now and rip them up to make taller towers? Wouldn't you instead pick places that had NO character - the boring, soulless, low-interest and low-historical value areas, and build better buildings there? There are swathes of SFH 2 storey Vancouver Special rental homes lining arterials and near transit that are scattered all over the city; those neighbourhoods could be bulldozed overnight and replaced with towers and nobody would miss the rental homes. Start there.

I think for Vancouver, there are lots of areas that are not that special, that could do with their density increased to 25 floors, way before we start ripping up the neighbourhoods that already are interesting, just so we can add more people to them. Adding density is not idea for every spot on the map, as it 100% changes the - yes, character - of a place, in good and bad ways. So the thing that you liked about an area will definitely change, quite possibly lost.

On that list above,

We should be instead exporting versions of Gastown, Yaletown, Chinatown.

To a degree we have done this at Commercial St by Trout Lake, Kerrisdale, Kingsway and Joyce Station, to a degree, and Olympic Village

You realise that these are two of the least affordable parts of the city too, right?

I think there's a lot of post hoc rationalisation happening in this thread, after all, why destroy existing "perfectly good" SFD character when we could build on ALR land? Why replace "perfectly good" ALR land when we could build in the forests instead? Why replace "perfectly good" land when we should just be building on the ocean? Why ruin the earth when space is right there. Etc. etc. etc. You'd never use this argument for anything else.

This is the argument for NIMBY suburban sprawl, and I would have expected that to be a denounced idea around these parts. I hate to see a clearly bad argument being repurposed by people that would normally reject the argument.

It really bothers me when people appreciate what previous generations built but are completely unwilling to make the same sacrifices or look to the future. Why do you think the buildings you currently love and appreciate so much were able to be built? Do you think nothing was there before? Yes, there are certainly other areas of the city that are clearly due for development far before Yaletown, but if you admit that eventually Yaletown would be on the chopping block, why are we being so conservative and saying "we need to keep things the way they are right now as long as possible"?

Translation: a more gradual change (e.g. 4 floors to 10-20, then 30-40, over several decades) may have resulted in a reduced historic district, or none at all. Rapid progress led to equally-rapid kneejerk preservationism - something the entire metro may want to consider, going forward.

Some, not many. Note again that the Sperling Elementary area is a bit more SkyTrain-adjacent than Station Creek, but none of that’s up for rezoning.

Let's be real, all of NYC is unaffordable; East Village is actually cheaper than Brooklyn.

We’re talking past each other. Far as I’m concerned, you want to cross that bridge sooner, NIMBYs want it crossed later; I want it crossed when we get there, no sooner, no later. Again, it's like the viewcones - rezoning six and a half blocks is hardly going to make the same dent in overall supply that rezoning two-thirds of the city would (and is very likely going to splinter the urbanist base).

Also bear in mind that unless efforts are made to keep the types of commercial/retail units that attract hipster/indie venues - in which case you’re basically keeping most of the building - there’s a 90% chance the breweries, butchers and art studios turn into Starbucks and Lululemon with a few sushi places thrown in; I'd consider that a net loss for every generation.

0You've already clarified that you don't see any justification in retaining even heritage facades, so you're just reiterating your view that there's no value in retaining any heritage buildings, or neighbourhoods. As the rest of Downtown and the West End density further, I can see the few areas with heritage precincts becoming more appreciated and improved at street level for pedestrian activity. Wider sidewalks, less through-traffic, more patios, better transit.

I don't think Yaletown will eventually need to be redeveloped in a way that would leave the odd facade, and add a collection of towers on top. I can see it adding a little more density with additional floors on the few buildings that haven't been updated.

Similarly, I'd expect more 10(ish) storey buildings in the DTES in Victory Square (which is oddly, not on the list), and Gastown (or even higher for large rental buildings like Army & Navy). That's the sort of change that's been adding population, seismically updating heritage structures, and retaining the overall character of the areas. I think Chinatown will see building up to maybe 8 storeys, like Sparrow, currently building on Keefer. I wouldn't expect towers, because there are dozens more that could be built Downtown and in the West End in places that don't have character or history worth preserving, and hundreds more in the rest of the city.

Your comments suggest you don't appreciate area, or building character, or history. Fredinno seems to hold a similar view. Several of us have explained why the character and history of a few small areas of Downtown are, in our view, worth preserving and enhancing. All you respond is 'or we could just tear it down'. There's nothing to debate really. Some of us like those areas, and buildings, and you don't care, and think something else would be better.

I too think we should cross the bridge when we get there, so why are we so scared of seeing if we're there yet or not? If we went full crazy laissez-faire anarcho-capitalist and removed all regulations everywhere, do you think that Yaletown would see towers first or the Southlands? I'm not advocating for that, but to say that Yaletown is even close to as dense as what the market would demand is kind of silly to me.

Some would say that losing the rail terminals, cement plants, and sawmills in False Creek was a net loss for every generation, some would say that losing affordability in the city is a net loss for every generation, some would say that losing SFHs in Vancouver would be a net loss for every generation, some would say that expanding port facilities at the expense of the environment is a net loss for every generation, some would say that building bike lanes everywhere and blocking people the freedom to drive is a net loss for every generation, some would say that allowing people to immigrate and push out the "old stock Canadians" is a net loss for every generation, why is Luigi & Sons suddenly something that now needs to legislatively be protected forever? Some things are worth saving and some things we can let go. I don't really think there's anything in Yaletown that is so precious to society that we can't let it go.

I would hardly consider Yaletown any more friendly to breweries, butchers, and art studios than anywhere else in downtown. I'm not sure if you've been to Yaletown anytime recently but it's not "hipsters" and "indie folk" that are buying dry aged steaks from Luigi & Sons.

I appreciate history, and that's why we have historians and history books to document it. Does it bother you when we remove statues of historical figures or rename elementary schools? There are a lot people that like them and think you're erasing history by changing them.

Correct, they should expend into characterless neighbourhoods and improve those already with the nice "character" by building more of the similar but more daring projects. Other neighbourhoods with lousy "character" can be bulldozed for all I care. Examples are Kitsilano (higher density area), majority of West End, Broadway corridor, and pretty much anywhere outside downtown Vancouver, within the boundaries of Vancouver.

It really bothers me that we're wheeling out the same NIMBY arguments you hear over and over again in defense of the part of the city you personally like. How can you possibly argue against a West Side NIMBY who wants to preserve the SFH area and historic character of their favourite neighborhood? If you redevelop it, you'll be destroying a suburban lifestyle that's never coming back. Does that not bother you? It bothers me.

The warehouse portion of Yaletown is approximately 0.06 sq km in area, and as mentioned has FARs of 3.5-4 throughout. 70% of Vancouvers land (115 sq km) is zoned single family and has FARs less than 1.

Vancouver has very few neighbourhoods with distinct and unique characteristics that people enjoy visiting largely due to the character that the existing buildings and their form create. These buildings already utilize their lots extremely well, so why would we focus development in this area when there's literally dozens of sq km. of non descript SF areas that are underutilized?

I agree that when it makes sense, development could occur here to bring up the FAR even more, but we are a long, long, long way from there. In my opinion, the only reason developing Yaletown is even an attractive option in the first place is that we've protected our Single Family neighbourhoods so much that any place that isn't single family becomes an attractive place to development, even with marginal FAR returns.

Protecting SF areas has led to additional development pressures on places like Gastown and Yaletown that wouldn't be there if more areas around the City were allowed to go to higher densities. When there's no SF homes around, it also means far less public opposition.

Yeah, it's a little weird that we have to cannibalize every piece of downtown before we can even lift a finger against suburbistan.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Heavy industry didn't work anymore, we got rid of it... SFHs, cars and Roberts Bank aren't working, we're getting rid of those... but we're nowhere near the point where historic Yaletown likewise doesn't work for Vancouver.
We do sometimes redevelop commercial areas because they're dead or dying and need an adrenaline shot... this one is clearly neither of those. Same reason Metrotown hasn't been gutted yet.

Not irreplaceable, but definitely unique - walk literally one block down the street, suddenly it turns into Fresh Slice and Subway, or nothing at all (i.e. residential-only). The only other places where I see these kinds of venues all next to each other are Gastown and OV... coincidentally, in all the older brick buildings. There may come a time when it goes the same way as The Post or The Bay, but the only reason we're even considering that for the area Right This Instant is because the rest of the city is untouchable.

It bothers me that it's either towers or suburbs, nothing in between. Historic Yaletown would appear to be the very definition of "missing middle."

Do we really need to wait for an area of the city to be dying before allowing development? :shrug:

You know there's a Subway in Yaletown in an older brick building at Mainland and Nelson, right? I feel like you have a bit of a confirmation bias here, most of Yaletown is trendy upscale restaurants, banks, and a bunch of sushi restaurants. Nothing you wouldn't see elsewhere downtown.

As always, I agree with that. So how can you not agree with what I said?

Why replace something that's doing well, and ahead of something that isn't? And how many breweries or butchers are in new buildings, or banks in old ones? I'll concede the sushi.

Because what you said contradicts what I said. Develop the warehouses any further, and it's most likely not Missing Middle at all - now it's midrises and highrises.

If developers were legally allowed to build similar mixed-use, off-arterial, dense buidlngs, and they were underway, inhabited and tenanted in various parts of the City... then I'd probably be okay with some facadism.

RBC, TD, Scotiabank, and CIBC are all in Yaletown. (Technically RBC isn't in the protected region, but I'm sure you'd want that building protected too.)

So how can you argue against suburban NIMBYs using the exact same arguments, then?

"We shouldn't develop the SFH parts of the city any further because we are losing the character of the neighbourhood and the lifestyle we are used to. Introducing density anywhere defeats the purpose of SFH neighbourhoods. If I look in the densified parts of the city, I never see gas stations, grocery stores with enough parking, or parks safe from 'undesirables' anymore. Yes, we can adapt a little, but if we allow development in the SFH parts of Vancouver there eventually won't be anywhere for families who want a yard. So much for missing middle, what about missing single family homes? There is plenty of land in Langley and Abbotsford that isn't developed yet, please develop there first."

What's your counter?

When West Side NIMBYs are okay with homes in Point Grey being converted to shops, offices, backyard apartment infill with house retention... then I'll listen. Very similar to former warehouse conversion and redevelopment opportunities

The math no longer makes sense for residential-only SFH neighbourhoods, which are usually far from active most of the year. I fail to see how any of the terms in that sentence apply to Yaletown's warehouses.

If vibrancy and higher density than the rest of the city aren't enough, maybe Olympic Village should be up for a rezoning too?

It doesn't sound like you care about the character preservation or heritage at all then, just whether it's "sufficiently used" right now. By this logic all of dead and/or dying Chinatown should be open for redevelopment (agreed) and literally nothing should be allowed to be built on Granville (can't agree), right?

Actually, Granville Mall south of Nelson is kind of a dump, which is why it's slowly getting redevelopment proposals as we speak; Granville north of Nelson is already densifying, and I've stated my approval of the Bonnis building. Ditto South Granville: the Kaplan sign, clock tower and Stanley Theatre are probably staying, but the rest is up for grabs; the only building I kinda-sorta thought looked nice is long gone by now, so whatever.

Chinatown? Go nuts - maybe keep some of the exteriors, but what I've heard indicates that most interiors are probably beyond saving at this point. Maybe save Phnom Penh for last, though.

Pretty much. Like I said, one can easily make a Bay or Post out of any of them... but different tenants like different types of units, so I'd like similar-sized/shaped units so that we get similar venues and businesses moving back in.

So in other words, if a developer bought 1140 Homer and wanted to tear it down and build the exact same floor plan with 24 extra stories of office space above, you'd be amenable to that idea? No change of use down below, the same "funky/trendy/kooky" office space, and a completely new structure matching the aesthetic requirements.

If an Alien Space Bat swoops down and makes all three possible (because a human developer most likely won't)? Go for it.

So why not just up the FSR allowed in Yaletown then? All the other requirements are there. (FYI 1140 Homer is a heritage building, but it doesn't look any different from the buildings around it.)

The parkade structure and access ramp, loading bay, garbage room access, bike elevator access, fire escape additions, you'd have to place on Hamilton St.

You either kill Hamilton (the defacto lane) as a pedestrian-patio street or you turn Homer into the lane.

And you're not guaranteed to get 1140 Homer by bulk rezoning the whole neighbourhood - developers will likely all make a beeline for Hamilton (which doesn't necessarily have the same protections) because that's where all the demand is, and then there goes business for the strip for 3-5 years of construction and another 3-5 while they lure customers back. In this case, spot zoning with conditions works better.

Ah, the age old NIMBY "but the infrastructure can't support new development" and "where will people park" arguments.

Guess there's no winning. :shrug:

So GenWhy's a NIMBY now? Oookay then... :runaway:

Just stating what my team is building already according to City policy and by-laws and what would likely happen here. Changing City policy and by-laws on parking and loading would have to come first, IMO.

Would likely require a car elevator too (they're super cool FYI)

To be fair the biggest NIMBYs I know are wealthy developers. I ain't wealthy so I'm pro wrecking ball.

This whole thread is about changing city policy and by-laws, so of course that's on the table. :tup:

Are there any car elevators in the city besides 1038 Homer? It was in use by Mini Yaletown when they were in Yaletown (yes there was a whole car dealership there at one point, very boutique ;)), and I guess now it's in use by Rivian which is pretty cool.

Olympic Village was the way it was because of shadowing...I think.
Not sure 100% why they didn't just copy Yaletown to the other side of False Creek, though I heard the shadowing in the afternoon as an explanation.


I think the older Concord Yaletown lots should be up for rezoning once Concord finally finishes NEFC and the other lots they 'bought' back.

Despite the fact that it's all towers, the actual density is lower than it would be- NEFC 'steps down' into lower density at Olympic Village (also the viewcones are worse here), and still has a higher FSR of 4.33 (minus Creekside Park) vs the FSR of 3.7 for the pre-2010s era Concord Yaletown towers.

There's a lot of obvious ones like 633 Kinghorne Mews and 136 Davie that could be demolished and rebuilt, (as well as the townhouses that fill the streetscape, which could be turned into 6-7 story office/apartment buildings with retail) while renovating the taller towers.

They could probably double the FSR in the end if they can convince the existing residents to put up with the constant construction so they can sell more units.

Right, but I'm just trying to be realistic. It's surprisingly "easy" (to those on the inside) to get a few extra floor and FSR here and there at the stroke of a pen from Staff and Council, but it's a whole other world to greatly relax garbage, loading, parking related by-laws.

You could impose a zero parking maximum, or a active-frontage requirement (x feet) which would allow you to preserve the heritage loading bays used by patios on Hamilton, and allow you to put the 1 car elevator access (13 feet wide) on Homer.

You could implement a centralized garbage system for the area. That would reduce that access requirement. Could also eliminate requirements for a loading bay and have that on the street.

This kinda applies to Gastown and Chinatown too I guess

There is one, if I remember as it was our only precedent example at the time, at South Creek Landing. Could be mixed up about location.

We tried to apply for an elevator in the City but there was a weird loophole where the company was licensed or whatever in Canada but not in BC, so we had to go through that for like a year. Ended up not getting built. We're currently proposing another office building downtown with an elevator. Seems to be going much better.

Very cool, yes there's one there. I would have never known if it wasn't pointed out. The Yaletown one is just far more obvious since it's behind glass doors.

Doesn't Jameson House have one?

Unless it's inside the parkade, Google seems to prove it doesn't.

Laneway access