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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Re: Europe, many "old" buildings are actually modern replicas of an previous style - they look old, but are actually from the Fifties or more recently. No reason we can't likewise knock an old building down and build a new "old" one in its place.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm glad Europe has the sense and know the urgency to protect their assets now, despite the fact that many were lost due to aerial bombings during WW2, as well as the falsehood of modern developments:

I've long argued somewhat tongue in cheek that one of the reasons why Europe was able to rebound so successfully after the war is that so much of Europe was flattened that they were able to rebuild almost from scratch without being held down by NIMBYs, red tape, and historical preservationists. Germany, the most destroyed by the war, is still booming today despite being held back by restoring East Germany. Spain who opted out on the other hand, not doing so swell.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Re: Europe, many "old" buildings are actually modern replicas of an previous style - they look old, but are actually from the Fifties or more recently. No reason we can't likewise knock an old building down and build a new "old" one in its place.

Yeah take a look at Dresden. People love the "historic" city of Dresden, but we bombed that city into the basement and then some. They just rebuilt it (to modern standards.) This was all built in the 90s.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

You compared 500 Dunsmuir with the Lexington in NYC, which more closely resembles the Hotel Vancouver.

For a pioneering backwater, that's what we got. I can compare a similar one from elsewhere, but the fact that both are heritage buildings, and your nit-pick brings no benefit to this discussion.

The Lexington Hotel building has maintained its elegance over the years, and although much larger than the 500 Dunsmuir building to serve a much larger City and population, both started as hotels with similar functions. In terms of architecture, both share many similarities such as a facade of brick and masonry work. I am saying that if our City could embrace its heritage building like other places, this could've been an elegant boutique hotel today, just like the Lexington Hotel in NY, instant of it being turned into an SRO, and then brought to its current state by Holborn as well as the City.

[Migrant_Coconut]

We're arguing over... this? It's a bland building with a pretty cornice - put a new cornice in whatever modern building replaces it, and call it a day.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Your post makes it sound like tourists only bother visiting places around the world for the heritage buildings. Hong Kong, Bangkok, Singapore, Tokyo, and Dubai are some of the most visited cities in the world. I assure you, no one is going to those cities for the heritage buildings or the architecture.

Sure, but those cities are visited for different reason. Dubai is a perfect example of what Canada should be doing with its oil and gas wealth to prepare for a future where tourism will be a bigger economic driver as those commodities fall in use. But they had to start from scratch.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Haussmann had the privilege of working under an authoritarian government. Once democracy comes around, conservatives tend to vote against scary change.

So, then you clearly have to acknowledge that age or historicity doesn't matter whatsoever. People like to visit nice things. Most heritage buildings in Vancouver are not nice things and are getting in the way of building nice things.

No question authoritarianism gets things done, which can be good or bad depending on what you wanted. But its also partly why something like Schloss Neuschwantsein could get build with way more "depth" than a developer working on a budget here could do. We'd end up with a version of Disney's town of Celebration.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We're arguing over... this? It's a bland building with a pretty cornice - put a new cornice in whatever modern building replaces it, and call it a day.

Yeah.

Take a look at the previous pages. There's actually a policy in some parts of Vancouver to prevent developers from building replicas of old buildings because it "diminishes" existing heritage buildings. Some NIMBY at some point realised we could use that argument so they cut their nose off to spite everyone's face by introducing that policy. No new nice buildings! That will only encourage demolishing old shitty buildings! Let them rot instead!

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I don't think the City can do anything, at this moment.

Kinda true but it’s their inaction to this point that has gotten us to where we’re at today.
Also they can let The developer know in not so many words that they will be encountering a great deal of trouble for any future proposals. Especially for items such as increased density or height requests made by them. They’ve done it before and lord knows they are absolute experts at putting up barriers unfavourable to business

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Re: Europe, many "old" buildings are actually modern replicas of an previous style - they look old, but are actually from the Fifties or more recently. No reason we can't likewise knock an old building down and build a new "old" one in its place.

Yep, this would be great. Built to modern environmental, comfort, and safety standards.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Kinda true but it’s their inaction to this point that has gotten us to where we’re at today.
Also they can let The developer know in not so many words that they will be encountering a great deal of trouble for any future proposals. Especially for items such as increased density or height requests made by them. They’ve done it before and lord knows they are absolute experts at putting up barriers unfavourable to business

"Because Holborn is the hero Vancouver deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll fight them. Because they can take it. Because they're not our hero. They're a silent demolisher, a watchful policy dodger. A dark developer."

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yep, this would be great. Built to modern environmental, comfort, and safety standards.

And, I pray to God, denser with more housing.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Kinda true but it’s their inaction to this point that has gotten us to where we’re at today.
Also they can let The developer know in not so many words that they will be encountering a great deal of trouble for any future proposals. Especially for items such as increased density or height requests made by them. They’ve done it before and lord knows they are absolute experts at putting up barriers unfavourable to business

I think Holborn knows what was at stake and just didn't care.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think Holborn knows what was at stake and just didn't care.

Perhaps we've reached the era of development brinkmanship.

CoV: "You will build what we want or we won't approve you for anything in the future! "
Holborn: "Let us build what we want or we'll let your precious heritage buildings rot! "
CoV: "You will build the social housing we demand! "
Holborn: "What if we build... nothing! What are you gonna do about it? "

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think Holborn knows what was at stake and just didn't care.

Pretty much Holborn's stock in trade. This is what happens when you hand junior a wad of cash and he gets to play developer (see Coromandel).

[madog222]

The motion for declaring 500 Dunsmuir a dangerous building passed with two ammendments.
Was anyone watching who can summarize the ammendments?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by madog222

The motion for declaring 500 Dunsmuir a dangerous building passed with two ammendment.
Was anyone watching who can summarize the ammendments?

AMENDMENT MOVED by Councillor Dominato
SECONDED BY Councillor Bligh

ADD NEW LETTER

THAT Council direct staff as part of their planned regulatory task force related to unoccupied buildings to consider building inventory, monitoring process, standards of maintenance bylaw for vacant buildings, and taxation options.

AMENDMENT MOVED by Councillor Kirby-Yung
SECONDED by Councillor Klassen

ADD NEW LETTER

THAT Council direct staff to report back on any legal avenues the City of Vancouver may have to seek recourse for the apparent neglect of the subject building and loss of heritage by the property owner.

AND FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to report back on any avenues Council has to seek compensation as part of future rezoning applications the property owner may pursue.

In summary: Ask staff how and if we can punish this developer for this now, how and if we can punish other developers in the future, and how we can fuck with this developer going forward in the meantime.

Originally Posted by chowhou

"Because Holborn is the hero Vancouver deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll fight them. Because they can take it. Because they're not our hero. They're a silent demolisher, a watchful policy dodger. A dark developer."

I stand by this being the situation we're in.

[Changing City]

Those amendments reflect the fact that the City's Standards of Maintenance Bylaw only applies to occupied buildings, not vacant ones. So there's a loophole that means there's currently nothing the City can do to make an owner maintain a vacant building, until it's dangerous. And there's apparently no compensation they can seek for the loss of a 'heritage' building unless it's actually subject to a Heritage Revitalization Agreement - which 500 Dunsmuir isn't. So that's another loophole that could be closed. The building has been known to be in poor condition since the beginning of the year, but it has deteriorated very quickly in the past few weeks - hence the urgency, and the recommendation.

The taxation reference is because some municipalities have a higher tax rate for vacant buildings, to encourage them to remain in use.

The one thing that was mentioned is that demolition could be considered as the loss of a 167 room SRO, and the fee is now up to $300,000 per room that's demolished and not replaced, so in theory Holborn could be on the hook for $50m for the loss of the SRO rooms. No doubt if the City pursue that idea, it will end up being tested in court.

The decision to demolish the building (which in itself will be complex, and expensive) was unanimous. Holborn didn't attend the Council meeting. The building is so unsafe the usual 30 day window to demolish a dangerous structure has been shortened to 21 days, but WorkSafe will have to sign off on the demolition process, so it's beyond the City's control how quickly demolition proceeds. (It sounds like some of Dunsmuir and Richards may be closed in the meantime, and obviously while demolition is taking place). The building is full of potntially toxic materials, but the specialist who tests for their presence stated that it was too dangerous to even contemplate carrying out testing, so the entire demolished material will have to be treated as hazardous waste.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

In summary: Ask staff how and if we can punish this developer for this now, how and if we can punish other developers in the future, and how we can fuck with this developer going forward in the meantime.

I stand by this being the situation we're in.

Is that a bad thing in this case?

[GenWhy?]

They were even worried about the idea to preserve the cornice as that would delay demolition and increase public risk.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is that a bad thing in this case?

It think it should be obvious that I support the developer having the right to demolish this building and I'm not going to condemn them for exploiting loopholes to do what I believe has to be done. Holburn certainly isn't my favourite developer in the world for various other reasons, but I'm not going to support punishing them for this.

Sometimes the rule breakers and benders are the dark knights we need. I applaud the immigrant homeowners of the 70s that exploited building code loopholes to build the Vancouver Specials with twice the FSR normally legally allowed and build illegal basement suites. I tentatively applaud the Shaughnessy homeowners that burn down their multi=million dollar heritage designation mansions though I wish it could be done in a safer way. I applaud MST Developments using anti-colonialism rhetoric to sidestep the heritage designation of 4949 Heather Street to redevelop it. I applaud the immigrant homeowners that build 8000sqft "SFHs" in the suburbs and house multiple families in them like small apartment buildings.

We are in a housing crisis and it's a universal fact that when inelastic demand hits a market with the supply legally banned, the consumers don't just leave. They're forced to turn to grey and black market supply to meet demand.

[jollyburger]

The rezoning inquiry from 2006 has some more background on the site/SRA status.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20061212/documents/tt3_BayParkade.pdf

I wonder if the declaration of it being a Dangerous Building create a loophole since Holborn isn't applying for a conversion or demolition permit?

Speaking of historical/decrepit buildings I'm always surprised that the 1st Ave Plant building doesn't require any more support for the facade hanging over the sidewalk with all the metal sheeting/wood boards. It's probably more structurally sound but those panels have occasionally started to separate from the "wall"

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think Holborn knows what was at stake and just didn't care.

Agreed. But that’s why it’s the city’s job to make them care but they don’t so hence the situation we find ourselves in