General Vancouver Development Updates II

[LeftCoaster]

Might as well complete the rezoning. Even if the City can't build the project it is still worth a lot more entitled than not.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Might as well complete the rezoning. Even if the City can't build the project it is still worth a lot more entitled than not.

And if the property tax goes up, the owner won't worry about it.

[LeftCoaster]

Haha hadn't thought of that. Well that's an interesting advantage the City has there.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by madog222

The City development proposals at Burrard & Pacific and Main & Terminal are both up for public hearing referral at next week's council meeting.
I'm a bit surprised, I assumed all work on proposals would stop since council denied the City the ability to build and operate for profit residential buildings. I guess they just want to get the rezoning complete and go from there.

I guess they just need one councillor to flip their vote so they might as well keep the process going.

Didn't see anything relevant in the referral reports for the projects on how that vote affected these rezoning applications.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

we have full on excavation going on at Fraser and 17th!!!! that tower will be the first of many and will dramatically change the area along with the bigger project at the NE of Fraser and Kingsway.

pic from and more info at https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/3231-3245-fraser-st-and-675-e-17-ave

Are we sure? I walked past the site and it looks the same as it has for the last 6+ months. The permit also says it's in review:

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=228070260

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Are we sure? I walked past the site and it looks the same as it has for the last 6+ months. The permit also says it's in review:

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=228070260

A temp street occupancy permit got issued on Jan 9th for construction/ESC system (waste water)

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=284954840

It was supposed to complete in fall 2026 originally (rezoning was approved in Nov 2023, DP in March 2024)

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

A temp street occupancy permit got issued on Jan 9th for construction/ESC system (waste water)

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=284954840

It was supposed to complete in fall 2026 originally (rezoning was approved in Nov 2023, DP in March 2024)

EDIT: DH article about two Anthem projects from last month

Anthem Properties announced on Friday it has finalized joint venture agreements with an unnamed long-term institutional investment partner, enabling shovels to hit the ground on two rental housing towers in separate areas of the city.

The other one is at 630-5668 Heather St

Major construction will begin in early 2026, with completion at the development sites scheduled for early 2028.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/anthem-p...-housing-projects-construction-financing

[seamusmcduff]

Ok that's great to see!

[officedweller]

2608 Tolmie St.

Telus begins construction on rental housing building in West Point Grey Village in Vancouver
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/2608-tolmie-street-vancouver-point-grey-telus-living-rental-housing


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/2608-tolmie-street-vancouver-point-grey-telus-living-rental-housing

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

2608 Tolmie St.

Telus begins construction on rental housing building in West Point Grey Village in Vancouver
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/2608-tolmie-street-vancouver-point-grey-telus-living-rental-housing


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/2608-tolmie-street-vancouver-point-grey-telus-living-rental-housing

It doesn't seem like they have any excavation permits issued yet but there was a ground breaking in November.

EDIT: there's a street use permit from December 11, 2025 that seems to be the excavation permit (?)

Permission is granted to excavate as per related building permit BP-2025-03260. No excavation for building construction purposes is permitted beyond the property lines on all street/lane frontages of the site. Shoring of public property by use of anchor rods or other approved methods as per Geotechnical drawings is permitted as indicated on this permit.

Valid wrap-up/commercial general liability construction insurance is on file for this project. The applicant is required to supply copies of all extensions or modifications of this insurance to the city upon change and prior to certificate expiry, until completion of the project.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=272551079

[GenWhy?]

Is this mostly a TEAM party thing do we think? Or are most residents going to oppose the very thing they're asking for?

https://dunbarnews.ca/multiplexes-raise-concerns-well-beyond-dunbar/

"While they didn’t outright mention multiplexes, they suggested other ways of adding housing to communities. For example, incentives to encourage individual end-users to build more secondary suites and infill development that can create more rentals and mortgage-helpers.

They urged “gentle, ground-oriented density options that better match household needs and local context.” Towers should not be the default solution, they said. While they have their place, they’re not always the best form. “The right supply is livable, secure, and suited to local neighbourhoods and larger units for families, without triggering demovictions.”"

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Is this mostly a TEAM party thing do we think? Or are most residents going to oppose the very thing they're asking for?

https://dunbarnews.ca/multiplexes-raise-concerns-well-beyond-dunbar/

"While they didn’t outright mention multiplexes, they suggested other ways of adding housing to communities. For example, incentives to encourage individual end-users to build more secondary suites and infill development that can create more rentals and mortgage-helpers.

They urged “gentle, ground-oriented density options that better match household needs and local context.” Towers should not be the default solution, they said. While they have their place, they’re not always the best form. “The right supply is livable, secure, and suited to local neighbourhoods and larger units for families, without triggering demovictions.”"

But that is the kind of development that sprouted up in Kitsilano that these academics, former urban planners seem to love to protect 40-50 years after they got built.

It's another story for municipal/provincial politicians to read the room and see if there's enough opposition to that kind of development. Look at the idiots in West Vancouver where they want city council to approve what new houses look like in Lower Caufeild.

https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/west-v...ew-lower-caulfeild-construction-11748052

[GenWhy?]

"The move follows a vote Monday on a motion brought forward by Couns. Sharon Thompson and Peter Lambur to have council give all plans for new housing the once-over before final approvals are given."

Big yikes.

"The problem with those guidelines is they are extremely vague, said Jim Bailey, director of planning, and tend to refer to streetscapes and landscaping rather than concrete design features."

So instead of making more concrete rules a private home owner does all the legwork just to have a subjective council of the day vote on their home's design. As someone who has way less money than these home owners that's still big-stupid

[GenWhy?]

This reminders me of the Shaughnessy guidelines that dictate house design when you can even see them from the street because of the tall hedges.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Is this mostly a TEAM party thing do we think? Or are most residents going to oppose the very thing they're asking for?

https://dunbarnews.ca/multiplexes-raise-concerns-well-beyond-dunbar/

"While they didn’t outright mention multiplexes, they suggested other ways of adding housing to communities. For example, incentives to encourage individual end-users to build more secondary suites and infill development that can create more rentals and mortgage-helpers.

They urged “gentle, ground-oriented density options that better match household needs and local context.” Towers should not be the default solution, they said. While they have their place, they’re not always the best form. “The right supply is livable, secure, and suited to local neighbourhoods and larger units for families, without triggering demovictions.”"

If that was your house on either side of that new building would you be happy?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

This reminders me of the Shaughnessy guidelines that dictate house design when you can even see them from the street because of the tall hedges.

First Shaughnessy Heritage Conservation Area Designation

https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/ODP/odp-heritage-conservation-area.pdf

At least those guidelines include some leeway in terms of secondary housing/infill.

I mean they want to cry about Broadway Plan units not being livable but where are the NIMBYs crying about two people living in a 19,000 sq feet mansion?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Is this mostly a TEAM party thing do we think? Or are most residents going to oppose the very thing they're asking for?
...

Ironically, wall-to-wall multiplexes are exactly what they want next door at Jericho to prevent the towers. It's almost like they'll bitch about anything just because it looks different.

Originally Posted by whatnext

If that was your house on either side of that new building would you be happy?

I have a five-floor condo next to my place which can look straight into my bathroom if I leave the door open too wide.

Such is the price of living in a global city with all its conveniences. Moving to Squamish or Chilliwack is always an option if I'm no longer willing to pay that price.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If that was your house on either side of that new building would you be happy?

It's the same footprint as the adjacent duplex house, and almost the same height / size (just no sloped roof). Is the concern the architecture? That's quite common in Edmonton and Calgary's critiques of the new infill homes over there and the latest zoning policies (with Calgary's to potentially be reversed).

Frankly I would be more pissed that these old houses have backyard patios that are practically on the 2nd floor straddling my property line.

[GenWhy?]

"Burnaby just “handed the keys to the city over to developers and said, ‘You go to it, you build anything you want.’…The results are these ugly monstrosities,” she told the CBC."

Reading this again this is primarily what it comes down to. People don't like the architecture and try / want to legislate it

[giallo]

Not sure if this video has been posted yet.

VGH+ West 12 Avenue Redevelopment: Phase 1

• Video Link