Chinatown Updates Discussion

[Millennium2002]

I'm rather disappointed about this rejection. Chinatown as it is is practically a shell of itself, and unless you force those of Chinese descent in Metro Vancouver to live in this segregated area, you'll never regain the old community as they have simply moved and settled elsewhere in the region. There's no getting it back like what the seniors and other activists would like to portray. Heck, with this rejection, it's almost saying that they want to keep it in the same dilapidated and run-down state that it is currently in... Is that really an improvement in the grand scheme of things? Do we really want to associate Chinatown with the horrors of the Downtown Eastside? I totally don't think so.

[Vin]

Maybe just maintain it as an abandoned site forever. That is more suited to "fit into" the area, if people in Vancouver don't think this new building is suited for Chinatown. The City's decision only discourages more developers/owners to re-build Chinatown.

[Tetsuo]

Shout out to the SJW hipster students at UBC for spearheading this "Not in their backyard" movement a couple years back.

[jlousa]

Disappointed in council, they created the plan this building fell under and it's actually a good well thought out plan. The developer worked and reworked and then reworked their proposal to get it to this stage. The no side didn't win, they just don't know it. They lost a bunch of units which are not likely to rematerialize. The area lost bodyheat that it so desperately needs. A shame for those of us that want a better Chinatown.

[dreambrother808]

But ultimately if you don't provide concrete evidence of a more affordable Vancouver, you will lose. That is the lesson. There are the smug posters who believe they are above the damage of the current conditions. They don't give a shit and that is also how out of tune they are with the average Vancouverite.

The status quo is unsustainable. Revolution is here.

[Feathered Friend]

While I understand the politics of why council has made this decision, I think it's a very flawed one from a policy point of view. The building, while not the prettiest, would have been good for the neighbourhood, and conformed with the policy guidelines. All this does is embolden people that are either misguided ,or holding on to a long dead memory of what Vancouver used to be. It gives developers the idea they can't trust the City to make smart policy decisions, which could lead to an underdeveloped Broadway Corridor. Worse still, it just encourages the bully mentality of those activists that opposed this project. I was deeply concerned when Councilor Carr essentially gave them all a pat on the back for it (at least that's how I read her words). At least every other council member, NPA and Vision, made clear their disgust with those that displayed that behavior. Ultimately this alone doesn't single bad fortunes for Chinatown; Frankly, that dye was cast when it was decided to cave in and amend the neighbourhood policy. Oh, and that's a perfect way to solve the housing crisis-- let's not build more units because that's worked well for us so far.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

But ultimately if you don't provide concrete evidence of a more affordable Vancouver, you will lose. That is the lesson. There are the smug posters who believe they are above the damage of the current conditions. They don't give a shit and that is also how out of tune they are with the average Vancouverite.

The status quo is unsustainable. Revolution is here.

Try housing people with a gravel lot. You providing tents and sleeping bags?

Affordability is relative. People living in that neighbourhood cannot afford housing even if it's 50% discounted. Many can't even pay a rent of $500 without getting help from tax payers. So what should be built there? Free housing? Who's going to pay the developer for that?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

How can it benefit the developers and also cater to SFH land usage at the same time?

Developers are chomping at the bit to provide more housing for the metro, leaving huge swaths of the city underzoned and under-densified does not help the development community. Nor does waffling on community plans and taking years to approve developments.

Developers aren't "chomping at the bit to provide more housing for the metro", they're chomping at the bit to line their pockets, and if it means selling huge amounts of units offshore they'll do it. Please don't try and sell development as some kind of public service.

Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, people shouldn't forget Beadie can break ground tomorrow on a 90' building without any rezoning and its attendant hearings. The community tuned out and said they didn't want anything larger with very real concerns about scale. If it means less social housing, then let it be on their heads.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

they should leave Chinatown as is. no government subsidies. they don't seem to want anything to change. may as well abandon the area and let the market decide. save us money and hard-ache.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Developers aren't "chomping at the bit to provide more housing for the metro", they're chomping at the bit to line their pockets, and if it means selling huge amounts of units offshore they'll do it. Please don't try and sell development as some kind of public service.

Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, people shouldn't forget Beadie can break ground tomorrow on a 90' building without any rezoning and its attendant hearings. The community tuned out and said they didn't want anything larger with very real concerns about scale. If it means less social housing, then let it be on their heads.

Yes whatnext, we all know you think all developers are evil (kind of a strange mantra on an urbanism site nearly entirely devoted to development and skyscrapers I may add), but your little rant didn't answer how a plan can both cater to SFH and at the same time benefit developers. Just another excuse for you to soapbox about evil developers ruining the world and foreign money I guess.

I'll say this, every single person I know in Vancouver lives in a home of some sort built by a developer...

Evil bastards

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

didn't answer how a plan can both cater to SFH and at the same time benefit developers.

build SFH on-top of the roofs of the buildings? that could work.

[officedweller]

Rezoning Application Submitted for Brickhouse Chinatown Site

The plan for the site at 728-796 Main Street is to rezone from the existing HA-1A District to a CD-1 to allow for a 15-storey mixed-use development that includes:
◾commercial space on the ground level and mezzanine;
◾19 social housing units, located on mezzanine and second levels, to replace existing Single Room Accommodation (SRA) units on site (social housing to be owned by the City);
◾a building height of 150 ft.;
◾a density of 8.12 FSR;
◾99 market residential units from levels 3 to 15; and
◾four levels of underground parking

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/0...hinatown-site/



http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/0...hinatown-site/


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/0...hinatown-site/


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/0...hinatown-site/


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/0...hinatown-site/

[hollywoodnorth]

love it .... just what the corner needs.

[LeftCoaster]

Fantastic, and over 8 FSR... about time something hits a proper density outside of the peninsula.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

288 East Hastings

By City of Rain SkyRise Cities taken April 30th

Click on post link above to see most previous pics by City of Rain. In the last pic below, 450 Gore Avenue is seen on the right side.



July 1 '17, my pics

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

April 11 '17, my pics

450 Gore Avenue. It appears there has been some work done since the site was closed down in early April after the wall collapse in the wind storm. Click the link in the quoted post above to see previous pics and discussion. Looks like the collapsed wall on the east side of the building has been removed but not fixed or replaced yet. The damaged properties next door are still as they appeared three months ago. The little coach house in the back of the nearby property looks almost completely destroyed.



July 1 '17, my pics

[Changing City]

The 'not a rezoning' Development Permit version of 105 Keefer Street has been submitted. Basically it's the same design as the rezoning but without the additional three storey pop-up, and without any non-market seniors housing.

So it now has 111 condos proposed, rather than 110 in the rezoning version that was rejected by City Council after many night of Public Hearing. It has a Development Permit Board date penciled in for October.

[LeftCoaster]

Most ironic thing is the developer will almost assuredly make a better yield off this scheme.

Great job housing activists!

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Most ironic thing is the developer will almost assuredly make a better yield off this scheme.

Great job housing activists!

well they are giving the people what they want, a lot that is within current zoning. if that is what the people want, then that is all that anyone can do.

no one said the people were smart though. this one was up to council and if they thought this was the right choice for the city, well that is what the people of the city elected them to do.

[jlousa]

The thing is the orginal proposal was within the official area plan as well (one approved by the very same council), just needed a rezoning to be enacted. Makes you shake your head...