Posted May 5, 2009, 5:58 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 41,838
|
|
Thanks for posting - I'll quote the whole office article since it has a couple of juicy tidbits.
Personally, rather see office space on the Austeville site (Budget Rent-a-Car site). Georgia is a ceremonial street and an office or hotel project would provide a more polished look on those sites than a standard residental point tower on retail podium would do. Office use would also infuse more life into that area during the day (when the cultural facilities are closed) than residential use would. I also tend to think that large floorplate office towers and residential won't be easy neighbours - due to view blockage - unless the City accepts the sardine spaced towers in larger cities like New York or Toronto.
Quote:
Increased office space plan courts controversy
Mike Howell
Vancouver Courier
Friday, May 01, 2009
The city's head of planning, and a well-known urban planner who ran unsuccessfully for council in the fall, are locked in a debate over what the future of the downtown core should look like.
Brent Toderian is defending a staff report to go before council Tuesday that calls for amendments to the Downtown Official Development Plan to create more office space.
The plan includes continuing a 1991 council directive not to allow residential development in the central business district. The change to the plan calls for no residential development in a portion of downtown referred to as the central business district extension.
"If we only protected the residential development potential we have, we would run out of job space in the central business district in relative short order," said Toderian, noting the proposal calls for 5.8 million square feet of commercial space to be reserved over the next 20 years.
Michael Geller agrees with Toderian that more density for office space should be allowed in the central business district, which runs roughly from Seymour to Burrard streets and from Dunsmuir to Cordova streets. But it's city staff's plan to remove residential as a permitted use across the district's extension that has Geller riled. The extension is located in two areas, one of which runs from Seymour to Beatty streets. The other runs from Thurlow to Bute, near the waterfront. "It's just simply, in my mind, a foolish approach," said Geller, who estimates the extension covers 18 blocks.
He said the downtown needs more mixed-use buildings, which include residential and business space. This way, more people can live close to where they work.
"It is what has distinguished Vancouver from Cleveland or Houston, and it's a mistake to remove residential as a permitted use just to ensure there's enough room for future office buildings," said Geller, who learned of the proposed zoning change while working as a planning consultant for land owner Austeville.
The land owner owns property on West Georgia, between Richards and Homer. Part of Austeville's plan is to build an apartment building on the property. But Geller said the city told Austeville it couldn't build because of the zoning changes.
He said the zoning change could significantly change the downtown and believes much of the development community and downtown residents are unaware of the proposal. Geller wants more debate and is not opposed to another solution, as laid out in region's growth strategy. Rather than lose residential development in downtown, the city could direct office developers to Burnaby and Surrey.
Toderian, who has engaged in an online debate on the topic with Geller on various blog sites, said the central business district's extension will have "real opportunities for residential."
"There will be residential, but allowing residential everywhere and at whatever levels the developer wants essentially results in much higher land value, higher taxes and the ultimate pushing out of job space potential," said Toderian, who believes Geller is over simplifying the proposal. He said about one-third of building sites in downtown that staff believe can accommodate growth, including land around GM Place and B.C. Place, "could have residential on them."
The council meeting begins at 2 p.m. Tuesday.
|
|
Prev
Linear Mode
