General Vancouver Updates

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by quobobo

If they own the property, I'll do that.

I own my property, maybe I will erect a 20 x 15 Burger King sign on my front lawn.

If they fined people for stupidity, you would be declaring bankruptcy.

[djh]

Originally Posted by TwoFace

I own my property, maybe I will erect a 20 x 15 Burger King sign on my front lawn.

If they fined people for stupidity, you would be declaring bankruptcy.

There is a point there, but I don`t understand why the 2 of you had to degenerate into childish insults.

Owning your own property doesn`t mean you can do *anything* you want on it. I would be offended if my neighbour installed a giant billboard on their lot. It would interfere with my quality of living, and would be an eyesore for the whole neighbourhood, which, not surprisingly, would affect the value of his and my house, let alone generate bad blood with all the other neighbours, affect sight lines, affect sunlight, and all that stuff. So there are reasons why you cannot do absolutely anything you want on your own property, and the city bylaws are there for those reasons.

Having said that, I don`t think the Lee Building`s billboard was ever an eyesore to anybody. Granted it is a subjective opinion on aesthetics, but I think it has been there so long that it has become a landmark rather than an eyesore - it`s no more or less ugly than the Jumbotron on BC Place or the giant signs above Futureshop/Winners on Robson/Granville. Plus, because of the building's height and mass, it can't be seen from ground level or even with in the immediate blocks anyway.

I wouldn't mind if that particular billboard, due only to its landmark status, won an exemption to the rule. But all of the other ones the city has identified as being outside of the bylaws, I would be OK with them being removed - gradually and with the least impact on the property owners (I'm talking about the ones that have been there a long time and are not affecting their neighbours such as the one on South Granville).

[SpongeG]

Pottery Barn Kids Is opening up On Granville Street - next to or just one down from Williams-Sonoma - the space where Pottery Barn had a temp store last year...

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by djh

There is a point there, but I don`t understand why the 2 of you had to degenerate into childish insults.

Owning your own property doesn`t mean you can do *anything* you want on it. I would be offended if my neighbour installed a giant billboard on their lot. It would interfere with my quality of living, and would be an eyesore for the whole neighbourhood, which, not surprisingly, would affect the value of his and my house, let alone generate bad blood with all the other neighbours, affect sight lines, affect sunlight, and all that stuff. So there are reasons why you cannot do absolutely anything you want on your own property, and the city bylaws are there for those reasons.

Having said that, I don`t think the Lee Building`s billboard was ever an eyesore to anybody. Granted it is a subjective opinion on aesthetics, but I think it has been there so long that it has become a landmark rather than an eyesore - it`s no more or less ugly than the Jumbotron on BC Place or the giant signs above Futureshop/Winners on Robson/Granville. Plus, because of the building's height and mass, it can't be seen from ground level or even with in the immediate blocks anyway.

I wouldn't mind if that particular billboard, due only to its landmark status, won an exemption to the rule. But all of the other ones the city has identified as being outside of the bylaws, I would be OK with them being removed - gradually and with the least impact on the property owners (I'm talking about the ones that have been there a long time and are not affecting their neighbours such as the one on South Granville).

In my defence, I haven't insulted anyone yet (at least not intentionally).

I wasn't really talking about cases like this - all the billboards we've been discussing are in high-volume transit corridors. However, even if your neighbour erects a massive sign in his yard:

A) The chances of this happening in a suburban neighbourhood where it would actually matter are slim to none, because of the reasons you mentioned
B) Even if it did happen, it's their property - if you want to do something about it, bring it up with them. Gather all your neighbours together and bring it up. If they're uncooperative and covering your house in shadow, nuisance bylaws or small claims court would probably do the trick. But if it's just an eyesore and it bothers you that much, move to a subdivision with a strata council to protect you from these things.

At any rate, this isn't what I was talking about and it's clearly not what this bylaw is being used to stop. If you want a bylaw that clearly states "Thou shalt not put huge signs on your lawn in residential areas", lobby for that. I wouldn't agree with it, but it's better than a catch-all bylaw that's depriving property owners in high-traffic locations of some extra revenue.

It may sound a little strange to defend advertising, but does the average billboard downtown really reduce your quality of life that much? I used to live in Japan, and I loved the neon and advertising downtown - it made it feel much livelier and city-like.

I'm done, sorry for the threadjack.

[SpongeG]

i don't think anyone here is anti-billboard

i think most people want the billboard to stay as is

its the city who seems to want it gone

[hollywoodnorth]

Business in Vancouver January 22-28, 2008; issue 952

Real estate roundup: Peter Mitham

Asia-Pacific trade centre for City of Vancouver ruffles feathers in Richmond

Meanwhile in Delta: golf club redevelopment plan raises ire of conservationists

Richmond laments Robson plan

A planned multimillion-dollar makeover of Robson Square is not sitting well in Richmond.

A renovation of the downtown Vancouver plaza has been discussed at various times over the past decade, but discussions now underway in Victoria could be the real deal.

A final decision on the project hasn’t been made, but the B.C. Ministry of Economic Development says an Asia-Pacific trade centre would be a desirable element.

There’s just one hitch: it’s the kind of thing tourism officials in Richmond have been seeking for that municipality, a fact that sparks some concern among backers of the Richmond project.

Since 1999, Tourism Richmond has collected about $6 million from a 2% tax on local hotel accommodation towards the development of an Asia Pacific Trade and Showcase Centre, originally envisioned as a media centre for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

The media centre went to Vancouver, and now the trade centre seems set to go to Vancouver, too.

A spokesman for the province said Richmond wasn’t considered for the Asia Pacific centre touted for Robson Square, prompting Tracy Lakeman, executive director of Tourism Richmond to wonder why not.

“We still believe that Richmond is the ideal location for an Asia Pacific centre, culturally as well as business-wise,” she said.

Shato faces challenge

The exclusion of 28.5 acres of land in Delta from the agricultural land reserve in exchange for the inclusion of 4.5 acres that are farmed is under fire from conservationists.

The arrangement was approved by the Agricultural Land Commission in November 2007 and removes an obstacle to Shato Holding Ltd.’s reconfiguration and redevelopment of the Tsawwassen Golf and Country Club with upwards of 450 units of housing. Shato has also committed 150 acres for rezoning from industrial to agricultural use as part of the arrangement.

But the apparent benefits to agriculture are drawing serious criticism from the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee, which has secured a grant from West Coast Environmental Law allowing it to retain North Vancouver lawyer William Andrews.

Andrews filed a petition on behalf of the Boundary Bay committee and its representative Kent Warmington in B.C. Supreme Court on January 10, days after Delta council sent Shato’s proposal to public hearing.

The petition seeks orders “quashing” the two resolutions of the Agricultural Land Commission that cleared the way for Shato to present its redevelopment application to Delta council.

The conservation committee contends in court documents that the land commission “exceeded its jurisdiction” at several points, and argues that the exclusion violates the spirit of 1989 decision allowing a golf course on the lands.

The planned residential development is not a legitimate golf course use, it believes.

“A new application for golf course use of ALR land and an application for exclusion of ALR land for residential development is certainly not a benefit to agricultural land,” Andrews told the land commission in a letter last fall, prior to being retained as counsel for the conservation committee.

Industrial strength

A reader asked last week how things had changed with industrial land over the past decade.

A glance back at BIV’s list of the “Biggest industrial business parks in Greater Vancouver” (April 1998) shows that land in the biggest park, Annacis Island, was selling for $375,000 to $400,000 an acre, while in Gloucester, parcels could be had for as little as $205,000 an acre. The cheapest property was in Bontebok Holdings Ltd.’s Nelson Road Industrial Park in Richmond, where sites began at $175,000 an acre.

Today, prices are well above those decade-old values.

Vacant land sales on Annacis are as rare as hen’s teeth, but estimates at Colliers International last fall pegged current values at between $1 million and $1.2 million an acre. In Gloucester, buyers can expect to pay between $900,000 and $1.2 million an acre.

The rise in prices – there’s lots of other examples besides these two – correlates with demand.

A decade ago, Colliers reported a regional vacancy rate for industrial properties of 4.6%. Today, the brokerage shows vacancies sitting at 1.5%. With quarterly absorption over the past two years averaging 1.35 million feet and new supply lagging behind it by an average of 600,000 square feet a quarter, the market doesn’t appear set to slacken.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

Richmond laments Robson plan

There’s just one hitch: it’s the kind of thing tourism officials in Richmond have been seeking for that municipality, a fact that sparks some concern among backers of the Richmond project.

Since 1999, Tourism Richmond has collected about $6 million from a 2% tax on local hotel accommodation towards the development of an Asia Pacific Trade and Showcase Centre, originally envisioned as a media centre for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Hmmm. A business / trade centre isn't really the same as a trade and convention centre - maybe they have their wires crossed. Isn't the facility at Robson Square supposed to be like an economic development office focussing on trade with Asia.
i.e. something that shouldn't be spearheaded by tourism officials?

[Rusty Gull]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Hmmm. A business / trade centre isn't really the same as a trade and convention centre - maybe they have their wires crossed. Isn't the facility at Robson Square supposed to be like an economic development office focussing on trade with Asia.
i.e. something that shouldn't be spearheaded by tourism officials?

That's what I was thinking. Richmond can still go ahead and build what it wants to. I hate to throw cold water over both plans, but the benefits of the trade centres is probably quite negligible.

The way to foster increased trade with Asia is to continue fostering the growth of the Canadian economy; make the country more attractive to invest in; and focus on research, innovation and value-added products.

[LeftCoaster]

Nothing really, but a new Tim Horton's coming to Commercial Dr.

Specs:
1932 sq ft.
Corner of E 1st and Commercial
Construction will start late April and finish Canada Day.

[djh]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Nothing really, but a new Tim Horton's coming to Commercial Dr.

Specs:
1932 sq ft.
Corner of E 1st and Commercial
Construction will start late April and finish Canada Day.

Isn't that the Vancity corner? It's quite a well-occupied corner, so where would it go?
There is that old empty McDonalds spot a little to the West of the VanCity, I guess it could be in there?

[LeftCoaster]

Actually a salon, restaurant, shoe repair and convenience store will all be kicked out to make way.

Kind of a bad trade I'd say.

[djh]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Actually a salon, restaurant, shoe repair and convenience store will all be kicked out to make way.

Kind of a bad trade I'd say.

Hmmm. Can't see the "brothers and sisters" on the Drive taking to that too well - a "big" corporation pushing out the independent "anti-corporate warrior" merchant. When I first moved here and lived near Commercial I kept hearing stories of how people not only boycotted Starbucks when they opened on the Drive, but they were getting their windows muddied and other unpleasant things. Perhaps that's why the McDonalds on 1st/Commercial closed in the first place (before my time)? So Tim Hortons could face the same fate.

[SFUVancouver]

That's my neck of the woods and yet I cannot quite picture where this will be built.

[SpongeG]

could you imagine if it replace red burrito :O

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by djh

Hmmm. Can't see the "brothers and sisters" on the Drive taking to that too well - a "big" corporation pushing out the independent "anti-corporate warrior" merchant.

I think it may slip under the radar, as most still associate corporate ownership to be Canadian and not Wendy's International.
Personally I prefer a strict code of Bohemian funk on the drive.

[jlousa]

AS far as I know Wendys no longer holds shares in Timmys, they spun them off as a seperate company about 2 years ago and while they retained a good chuck of shares at that time I think they have sold those off by now as they are in some serious trouble and need the cash.

Found some info

"However, as part of a deal with several key investors announced late Thursday, Wendy's will spin off all of those remaining shares in Tim Hortons to shareholders no later than Dec. 31, 2006.

So while I'm sure there are still lots of american investors with Timmy shares it's probably safe to assume it's mostly canadian owned now, as I remember the frenzy during the IPO.

I imagine the location as either the old McDs or that old bank (CIBC?) on the NE corner. While a Timmys will probably do well there regardless, I think everyone can agree that the population living there is not their typical customer base.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I imagine the location as either the old McDs or that old bank (CIBC?) on the NE corner. While a Timmys will probably do well there regardless, I think everyone can agree that the population living there is not their typical customer base.

I would think that the Corporate heads never took the neighborhood into consideration, but only saw a major traffic artery to downtown, parking, and a large commercial/industrial client base just a couple of blocks west.

[Jared]

I live 3 blocks from commercial and I'm trying to figure out which corner the Timmys will be on?

You've got:

NW: Vancity
SW: Parking lot + Royal Bank
SE: Red Burrito
NE: A household goods shop or something?


Anyways, as is typical of this neighborhood, there's sure to be plently of calls for boycott, but it will die down. The Starbucks on Commercial and 2nd is always busy, Tim Hortons will do fine.

[SpongeG]

Ethical Addictions is opening up on the drive too

it's a coffee chain from the valley

[jlousa]

Busby Perkins + Will leads design team for VanDusen Botanical Garden refurbishment project

Budget for first phase estimated at $6.5 million
A long-awaited $20 million refurbishing of Vancouver’s VanDusen Botanical Garden has begun.
Upgrades for the attraction, located at 37th and Oak, have started with Busby Perkins + Will, a B.C. architectural firm known for it’s green focus.
The firm was selected in December to lead the design team.
John Ross, Vancouver park board project manager for the city-owned garden site, said that the two-phase refurbishment is being undertaken because the activities and popularity of the gardens has outstripped the capacity of the current buildings onsite.
Since opening in 1975, buildings at the gardens have not been renovated.
The gardens sprawled over the 22-hectare (55-acre) site will remain untouched as it is home to about 255,000 plants.
The city garden is managed in conjunction with the VanDusen Botanical Garden Association, which works to raise funds for the garden’s development and the refurbishment is a joint-venture between the association and the parks board.
“In Phase 1 we are looking at improving access to the garden and (to) improve the visibility,” Ross said, adding that the garden’s entrance is now low-key and many motorists drive by it.
The goal is to make the whole entrance area more user-friendly.
“We want to enlarge the gift shop and do some work to the interpretive centre where groups gather,” he said.
“There are also plans for a separate pavilion from the facility, which could be used as a large meeting, reception and rental area.”
The first phase is projected to cost about $6.5 million.
Phase 2 will look at areas such as the administration building, library, volunteer centre and the seed collection area.
While Peter Busby will be the managing director of the architectural design team, the project leader is Jim Huffman, who said the design team would be meeting over the next three months to look at design possibilities.
“We will look at their specific needs and try to develop a program,” he said, adding that one of the themes discussed at an early meeting was to try to have the building work with the garden, rather than just be located in it.
Huffman said that possibilities for such a plan exist with designing ways that the building works in an organic sense.
The plan could include capturing water and reusing water and even growing the vegetables used in the on-site restaurant.
He said that the project is currently one of the smallest in his office today, but is considered one of the most high-profile as the design team includes individuals such as Cornelia Oberlander, a North American landscaper with impressive credentials.
She was one of the first women to graduate Harvard University’s School of Design with a degree in landscape architecture in 1947 and she is currently working in New York with world-class architect Rezo Piano.
Once the design needs have been established, the actual design will be drawn up during the summer months and construction could begin this fall after tendering, depending upon the timing.
However, Ross said that if there are delays, it might have to be postponed until spring as it could interfere with the Festival of Lights, a major December attraction at the gardens.
Mary Butterfield, capital campaign director and a building committee member for the association, said that the $20 million is an over-all goal. There is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in place between the park board and the association that each will contribute half of the needed funds.
Butterfield said that the association has raised more than $6 million, so it has about $3.7 million left to meet its obligation.
Butterfield said that the building committee did have a concept design in place, but now is meeting with the architectural and landscape team to reconsider much of that original design.
“The main message is that the design is starting,” she said.
Anyone wishing to donate to the refurbishment project can contact Butterfield or the VanDusen Botanical Gardens.