General Vancouver Updates - Page 59

phesto · #**1161** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 9:11 PM**

Here's a couple of renderings of 538 West Broadway I hadn't seen:

SFUVancouver · #**1162** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 10:02 PM**

^ That is the old design that was scrapped because it projected quite significantly into the David Lam Park Seawall to City Hall viewcone. The new design has the same volume but is a six storey slab building instead of an eight storey mini-tower on a two retail podium. The project is in the rezoning stage.

officedweller · #**1163** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 10:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ That is the old design that was scrapped because it projected quite significantly into the David Lam Park Seawall to City Hall viewcone.

Seriously?
A reverse view cone towards City Hall?

SFUVancouver · #**1164** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 10:53 PM**

Well I can't find it in the list of official view cones... However I know that there was a problem with the view analysis of the original design. The revised design squeaked through rezoning at the UDP.

Whether it is an official view cone or not, something extends from David Lam Park to City Hall and my understanding is that is what limited the height of Crossroads and forced the Broadway Plaza tower to turn 45 degrees off axis from Broadway.

mr.x · #**1165** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 10:55 PM**

I've lost all faith in humanity.

SpongeG · #**1166** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 11:30 PM**

the view of city hall is pretty nice at night from downtown - some areas anyway - i could see why they want to "save" it but whatever - view cone schmooo cone

djh · #**1167** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 11:40 PM**

^Looks like a 1-tower version of Crossroads across the road.

zivan56 · #**1168** Posted **Apr 30, 2009, 1:58 AM**

Any more info on the project? Link to proposal? A friend of mine used to live in one of those buildings and was forced out recently...so thats why....

SpongeG · #**1169** Posted **Apr 30, 2009, 2:58 AM**

they are moving the "welcome to vancouver" sign on grandview hwy

it was on the grass beside Wal-mat its now further east closer to boundary road

jlousa · #**1170** Posted **May 1, 2009, 3:30 AM**

The building next to the Cobolt on Main has applied to have it's rooms removed from the SRA registry. The building now houses an antique store named the Source and has 39 rooms above it. Someone mentioned that Bosa owns the empty parking lot next to this site, maybe they're interested in this building in orfer to build another project there. If she gets the rooms removed from the registry which staff are recommending then it'll be worth much more then it would be with them listed.

hollywoodnorth · #**1171** Posted **May 1, 2009, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

The building next to the Cobolt on Main has applied to have it's rooms removed from the SRA registry. The building now houses an antique store named the Source and has 39 rooms above it. Someone mentioned that Bosa owns the empty parking lot next to this site, maybe they're interested in this building in orfer to build another project there. If she gets the rooms removed from the registry which staff are recommending then it'll be worth much more then it would be with them listed.

interesting

djh · #**1172** Posted **May 1, 2009, 5:23 PM**

Are you saying you can just remove your building from the SRO registry? Then how does the city maintain a stable number of SRO spaces? Is there some penalty fee for coming off, or do the landlords have to promise to provide replacement SRO rooms, or something similar?

Edit: Are we talking about SROs (Singe Room Occupancy rooms), or is SRA a typo, since I've never seen that acronym before?

phesto · #**1173** Posted **May 1, 2009, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djh

Are you saying you can just remove your building from the SRO registry? Then how does the city maintain a stable number of SRO spaces? Is there some penalty fee for coming off, or do the landlords have to promise to provide replacement SRO rooms, or something similar?

Edit: Are we talking about SROs (Singe Room Occupancy rooms), or is SRA a typo, since I've never seen that acronym before?

SRO = Single Room Occupancy (residential hotels)
SRA = Single Room Accommodation (more general: includes SRO's, rooming houses etc)

It's really just City of Vancouver planning lingo bs to confuse outsiders.

You can't just remove a building from the SRA list - you have to make an application. The City can attach conditions like fees, provision of low-cost housing, etc.

djh · #**1174** Posted **May 1, 2009, 6:32 PM**

Thanks for the clarification, phesto.

I'd support that building being removed from the SRA on some decent conditions. I think that area definitely needs to have some SRA remaining, as that part of Main through to Chinatown is relatively stable with low-income families. I'd like to see their needs preserved in any development - e.g., a certain number of SRAs in any new buildings, like was done quite well in L'Hermitage.

As for that little area with its pubs such as the Cobalt etc., they are really an eyesore and are a meeting place for some dodgy characters (I remember one was closed down because of constant busting for fencing), but they are needed for the lower-income people in the area. If they can be cleaned-up and made legit, then they have a right to stay. If that could be one of the conditions of redevelopment (e.g., to build on this site you have to plan a neighbourhood pub/restaurant and a certain number of SRAs in the development), that could kill two birds with one stone.

s211 · #**1175** Posted **May 1, 2009, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djh

Thanks for the clarification, phesto.

I'd support that building being removed from the SRA on some decent conditions. I think that area definitely needs to have some SRA remaining, as that part of Main through to Chinatown is relatively stable with low-income families. I'd like to see their needs preserved in any development - e.g., a certain number of SRAs in any new buildings, like was done quite well in L'Hermitage.

As for that little area with its pubs such as the Cobalt etc., they are really an eyesore and are a meeting place for some dodgy characters (I remember one was closed down because of constant busting for fencing), but they are needed for the lower-income people in the area. If they can be cleaned-up and made legit, then they have a right to stay. If that could be one of the conditions of redevelopment (e.g., to build on this site you have to plan a neighbourhood pub/restaurant and a certain number of SRAs in the development), that could kill two birds with one stone.

That part of Main — large. Vacant lots, SROs from hell, SRAs from heck. Need to wipe that stuff off the map and clean the place up.

hollywoodnorth · #**1176** Posted **May 1, 2009, 11:32 PM**

on the subject of the VACANT lots at Main and Milross

the ones here http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=49.275671,-123.099414&spn=0.000465,0.001495&t=h&z=20

are the spot of the social housing project.......the building on the SOUTH of the lots there was just taken down this week! I am VERY excited for this project to move ahead.....

entheosfog · #**1177** Posted **May 2, 2009, 1:04 AM**

I had some friends from out of town stay at that backpackers hostel (the building that has the Source at the bottom) and they said the rooms were actually in pretty decent shape. That building, in my opinion is fine. It's all the empty lots, burned out buildings, boarded up buildings and the Cobalt Hotel that make that are really really crappy. I don't think the Cobalt Pub is a bad thing though. Brings some life on to that street at night. That stretch of Main has some great potential though, especially if Main south of Terminal sees some action...

jlousa · #**1178** Posted **May 2, 2009, 1:16 AM**

The city in it's attempt to control the market had placed a $5000/unit fee to remove units that were on the registry, when the market was hot that didn't stop the units from being removed so the city upped the price to $15K/unit. It's had an effect, but where it's the new price or the fact the market turned we'll have to wait and see. By the way that $5K/15K fee was to go towards the city funding new SRO units, (think they might have underbudgeted just a tad seeing their prices lately).

The C&N Hostel (the source building) is being allowed to remove it's units without the penalty fee due to the fact it hasn't allowed any long term stays so it's not acting as housing. The owner apparently has kept very good records showing it's been used as short term stay only.

Nice to see the area changing although it's been a slow process (20years since citygate started it).

hollywoodnorth · #**1179** Posted **May 2, 2009, 1:58 AM**

http://vancouver.ca/nmi_wac/nmi.exe/Detail?ID=457

this is the project I was referring to

1005 Station St. any new details on it?

s211 · #**1180** Posted **May 2, 2009, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

on the subject of the VACANT lots at Main and Milross

the ones here http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=49.275671,-123.099414&spn=0.000465,0.001495&t=h&z=20

are the spot of the social housing project.......the building on the SOUTH of the lots there was just taken down this week! I am VERY excited for this project to move ahead.....

Just what the area doesn't need: MORE social housing.