Downtown Vancouver Updates

[theKB]

I don't understand how a bunch of new condo's will help shed vancouver of it's "no fun reputation"

If that was a true entertainment district it wouldn't be the place to locate a whole swath of new residential towers.

[officedweller]

View cone height restrictions.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

View cone height restrictions.

View cone bylaws - not something cast in stone.

It is funny that citizens always treat it as the downtown 'bible'. Councils can always change based on areas and needs.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Vin

View cone bylaws - not something cast in stone.

It is funny that citizens always treat it as the downtown 'bible'. Councils can always change based on areas and needs.

To Vancouver City Council - it pretty much is cast in stone.

That's what the whole higher building review process / public hearings were all about a couple of years ago - whether or not to allow exceptions to the view cones - and they came up with a mere handful of sites for taller buildings.

Buildings are being designed to fall into "view shadows" so they don't create "new" encroachments into view cones.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Hmmm - sounds like a marketing scheme.

5 of the 8 towers have already been promoted - 2 at One Pacific and 3 at the Paragon Resort proposal.

The other 2 are for Concord's "Colours" project - and oddly - the 8th is shown on a social housing site between Pacific and Expo Blvds.

Looks like One Pacific will have 2 levels of commercial space (maybe office?) - posted in that thread.

Hopefully Colours will too.

very odd about the social housing site ... but something is off with that social housing project .... it got reduced in scope 2 times if I remember correct and should have been U/C by now .... but is not ....... ?

better photo here C/O Straight >> http://www.straight.com/files/styles/article_main/public/falsecreekcentral1_131002.jpg

[hollywoodnorth]

seems the 8th tower is the site Concord is trying to trade the city for the 58 Hastings Site

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Resident...s+north+Cambie+Bridge/8989605/story.html



Webb said Concord is working with the city on providing social housing.

“Right now, there are a couple of sites that have non-market housing, as it’s referred to, designated on them,” he said.

One solution, he said, could include giving the city a site for social housing on the Downtown Eastside so Concord doesn’t have to build its equivalent in False Creek Central. The site under consideration is 58 West Hastings, the vacant lot with an urban garden, across from Army & Navy.

[officedweller]

Ahh, that makes sense. That's the Greenwich site that Concord faced protests over.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Ahh, that makes sense. That's the Greenwich site that Concord faced protests over.

So typical. I would expect Concord to face criticism over wanting to move yet another social housing site into the DTES, and yet when they want to build something else instead they get protests from the "locals".

[Rico]

I am not in favour of additional social housing in the DTES, in fact the Concord lands are perfect for social housing. They will be in a higher income area and far enough away from the 'negative' aspects of the DTES so that residents of the social housing can make positive improvements to their lives but still close enough to the specialized services the DTES provides that they can access them when required. Make Concord build the social housing on site. Even better allow them to develop the Hastings property with a provision for social housing to offset the loss of existing low cost housing.....but put the additional social housing on the Concord lands as well.

[jlousa]

Hope the city doesn't allow the transfer, social housing is best spread throughout the city and the region. Sell the 58W Hasting site to another developer if they don't want to go thru the work involved, but don't let them offload the social housing requirements for NEFC. The amount of times the requirements have already been altered is mind-boggling.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Hope the city doesn't allow the transfer, social housing is best spread throughout the city and the region. Sell the 58W Hasting site to another developer if they don't want to go thru the work involved, but don't let them offload the social housing requirements for NEFC. The amount of times the requirements have already been altered is mind-boggling.

^^

[Jimbo604]

I'm not sure there's that much new in this proposal/picture?

Just the social housing site (the most left-wardward building on the picture) is now showing a tower. This is a "bit" of an assumption seeing as City of Vancouver currently owns the property, don't they? And it's slated for a future social housing project?

And then at the far right there is a new tower beside BC Place.

One Pacific (aka Colours 1) and across the street on the west side of Cambie, Colours 2 we already knew about. And the Casino we knew about as well.

It looks like to me Concord just packaged up the whole area and rolled it out as a marketing concept...??

[WarrenC12]

^^^^

Agree, and I'm not even sure why.

Is the Casino proposal on land they currently own?

[officedweller]

At the very least it would notify new residents / condo buyers that the area will be noisy.

The One Pacific site plan DOES show a pedestrian link under the Smith ramp of the Cambie Bridge connecting One Pacific with Colours.
It's marked "east-west passage" on page 44 here (alos note the "atrium" and 2 levels of commercial space):

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/committees...ard-report-68-smithe-street-de415916.pdf

This may be a sign that Concord wants to remain involved with the development (i.e. managing commercial space) rather than avoiding retail and just handing off the property once completed.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by officedweller

At the very least it would notify new residents / condo buyers that the area will be noisy.

but in true vancouver fashion people will move in and complain about the noise or activity or the fact that the sky is blue

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

To Vancouver City Council - it pretty much is cast in stone.

That's what the whole higher building review process / public hearings were all about a couple of years ago - whether or not to allow exceptions to the view cones - and they came up with a mere handful of sites for taller buildings.

Buildings are being designed to fall into "view shadows" so they don't create "new" encroachments into view cones.

For this area, it would make sense to have 3 or 4 really tall towers with retail podiums. These towers can be spread apart, allowing BC Place stadium not to be blocked in its entirety.

The current plan calls for up to 8 new shorter structures (Olympic Village style) that are built close together, essentially blocking off the view of the stadium. Future residents will also find it claustrophobic.

It was an excellent idea that the public consultation brought about the allowance for taller buildings a few years ago. However, I feel that this should be an on-going process in our land-scarce city.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Hope the city doesn't allow the transfer, social housing is best spread throughout the city and the region. Sell the 58W Hasting site to another developer if they don't want to go thru the work involved, but don't let them offload the social housing requirements for NEFC. The amount of times the requirements have already been altered is mind-boggling.

In that case, It's about time they put social housing in Metrotown, Richmond centre, UBC, Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Oakridge and Shaunessey (gulp!). There are too many social housing around midtown near Granville bridge area. There are also, comparatively, a lot of them in Yaletown compared to the rest of Vancouver and the lower mainland. Why does downtown get the bulk of them?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Rico

I am not in favour of additional social housing in the DTES, in fact the Concord lands are perfect for social housing. They will be in a higher income area and far enough away from the 'negative' aspects of the DTES so that residents of the social housing can make positive improvements to their lives but still close enough to the specialized services the DTES provides that they can access them when required. Make Concord build the social housing on site. Even better allow them to develop the Hastings property with a provision for social housing to offset the loss of existing low cost housing.....but put the additional social housing on the Concord lands as well.

I may be wrong in this, but mind you that Concord doesn't have the obligation to build the social housing: they just need to provide the land. There are already a few parcels that have been provided to the city and have been left vacant for years. One example is the lot close to George Wainborn Park by Pacific Boulevard in Yaletown: still no announcements of its development.

However, do Keep in mind that there is already a saturation of subsidized housing near the area, namely around Seymour (4), Richards (2), Drake (1), Howe (2) and Granville (many!), so much so that the neighbourhood is starting to look rather 'unsavoury'. There is even a food truck coming to Emery Barnes Park every Monday to cater to the residents' free food needs. You should head over there and check out the long line-ups. Being close to DTES, I'm sure you don't want a saturation of unsavoury characters in the stadium area, do you?

I think that Concord and other developers have already done plenty to meet the social housing demand from the City. To further push for this is archaic. The city should come up with other requirements like providing work search centres, public swimming pools, squash courts, and other affordable amenities to the public in these reserved lots. Too much Social housing only aims to spoil the jobless and addicts, and many of these places are used as drug transaction bases for dealers. Build more social housing in Burnaby, Richmond, Surrey, Coquitlam and north shore.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Vin

For this area, it would make sense to have 3 or 4 really tall towers with retail podiums. There towers can be spread apart, allowing BC Place stadium not to be blocked in its entirety.

The current plan calls for up to 8 new shorter structures (Olympic Village style) that are built close together, essentially blocking off the view of the stadium. Future residents will also find it claustrophobic.

It was an excellent idea that the public consultation brought about the allowance for taller buildings a few years ago. However, I feel that this should be an on-going process in our land-scarce city.

It's not about BC Place views - it's about North Shore mountain views.

Click on each view cone listing here, to see the view cone corridor - and then try to find a site where you can build a tall tower.
(Hint: the only sites are on the 1000 and 1100 blocks of West Georgia)

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/listing.htm

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It's not about BC Place views - it's about North Shore mountain views.

Click on each view cone listing here, to see the view cone corridor - and then try to find a site where you can build a tall tower.
(Hint: the only sites are on the 1000 and 1100 blocks of West Georgia)

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/views/listing.htm

Getting away from the topic so this will be my last comment regarding this issue.

Thanks for the link officedweller! It is funny why view cones are so important downtown. It seems that everyone views that coming downtown to see the mountains is so important (there are even view cones from on top of Cambie and Granville Bridges!) that they still worship an Act enacted in 1989. There are 99% of Vancouver which showcase splendid mountain views, like along Spanish Banks. Downtown is just a tiny area by comparison. And seriously, who looks at those little dark blobs that are mostly hidden behind clouds in rainy Vancouver when driving downtown on top of Granville bridge when there are nicer things like skyscrapers to look at?

My solution if council is so obsessed (—) about view cones: get the developer who develops the tallest building in the city to provide free viewing gallery on top for the mountain viewers to get perpetual views of mountains from downtown. The building is even equipped with harpoons that shoot down large seagulls that block their pristine view.