Westend Community Plan

[Klazu]

Here is a nice video the City has released about the history of West End:

• Video Link

[Dave2]

2.5 GEORGIA/ALBERNI
The Georgia/Alberni Area slopes gently north to the city's most
important, prestigious and ceremonial street — Georgia Street. The area
has been called an "emerging area" — one which has not yet developed but
has great potential

The area is characterized by a preponderance of vacant sites and older
underdeveloped one or two storey buildings containing what appears to be
relatively interim footloose retail uses. These conditions indicate
there is significant potential for redevelopment throughout the area.
The City recently purchased the motor vehicle testing station site

because the potential for a significant residential
component in this area needs further exploration (particularily in light
of Council's preference for a connection of Georgia to Alberni at Chilco
Street)

Film Processing
Drive In Theatre
Sale or rent of sex-oriented products.

Burger King:

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-end-commercial-areas-policy-plan.pdf

[Dave2]

Bring back the Pee-Wee Mini Golf






http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploa...e-6d05-4a1a-8db1-934b7c326047-A17482.jpg

[jlousa]

Here is the latest draft plan. Probably pretty close to what we'll see head to council and hopefully approved.

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-end-community-plan--draft-plan-2013-oct-22.pdf

[trofirhen]

Looking through the draft plan posted by jlousa, IMO it all looks pretty exciting to think of the changes and refinements that will go into the downtown area. I really hope that in some areas, such as the Alberni retail corridor, that they will enhance the lighting with mid-level streetlighting (such as exists on West Broadway in Kits, Olympic Village, Denman, and on Georgia St around the Royal Centre) to really give added light and sparkle to upscale and character areas.

[jlousa]

Note a lot of changes from the earlier drafts, the plan is finally going to council. Here is the report and the appendix, a good read but a tad dry. There are pictures for those that can't be bothered to read.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20131120/documents/WestEnd.pdf

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20131120/documents/AppendixA.pdf

[LeftCoaster]

Read through a chunk of it, started to drift out about mid way through transportation though. Some thoughts:

I like that they are trying to expand the width or add parklets on the sidewalks on Robson and Alberni, certainly a good step. Some rooftop patios on Robson would be great too, might as well make good use of the lower heights/sunlight in the corridor.

I like the laneway housing idea, currently tons of space wasted on parking lots fronting the laneways, this will help push more rental stock and make the neighbourhood look better. Might even lead to better maintenance of the laneways too which would be great.

The building heights all seem about right, only weird one for me was B on the Georgia corridor. It is given a tall height but there are almost no developable plots on the strip, so it seems like a bit of a bone thrown with little needed to back it up. I would have liked to see B extended to the Whitespot plot. At least they got it right on the Burrard corridor where a certain church falls into the 550' zone... Hope a certain developer builds to the max height on the site.

the quote "maximum densities will recognize urban design considerations on a site by site basis" is a little strange, I thought plans like this were supposed to set out guidelines and the site by site basis was still used. Kinda seems like they dodged the question there. Other than that I thought densities are a little low, but then again that is my complaint for most Vancouver developments.

[jlousa]

That does seem to be a major issue with public distrust lately, what is the point of the plan if there is still the potential for "site by site". That gets people's back up quite a bit.
I actually thought the density numbers they have are on the high side, think they got the heights right though for most areas, and glad to see residential excluded outright in the important commercial areas, this will keep conflicts down.
I also like that the city used a concept I've brought up with them numerous times in the past of density bonusing where the base density is lower but if social housing units or rental units are included that a higher density could be built. This has the potential to provide needed units cheaply w/o costing taxpayers a fortune.

[phesto]

I think the City took the right approach, and once again the path of least resistance. The vast majority of new highrise development will occur between Burrard and Thurlow, as well as Georgia/Alberni where there is less 'character', while most of the West End will remain essentially unchanged.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

At least they got it right on the Burrard corridor where a certain church falls into the 550' zone... Hope a certain developer builds to the max height on the site.

What about the city's 80 foot tower separation guideline outside the CBD? The distance between Patina and the property behind Fist Baptist Church has to be less than 40 feet.

[wrenegade]

I believe the guideline is between habitable space. So no two bedrooms/living rooms can be close than 80'. Also, I believe the guideline only applies above 40'? It is a guideline too. The Henriquez designed building at 1155 Hornby was allowed to go as close as 60-65' if I remember correctly though it was a difficult site and included restoration of a heritage building.

My biggest issue with the West End plan is the building heights on the north side of Davie between Burrard and Thurlow. Because the buildings are only shadowing St. Pauls I think the height should be allowed to go to ~210' (height based on view cones bisecting part of the block). The area is extremely well located close to amenities and transit and could easily accept the density. I don't think the height would be out of scale with the neighbourhood either. I think Davie street would still retain it's low-rise feel because of the 4-storey streetwall on the south side and the sunlight penetration. I feel the same way about Robson Street. The South side of Robson could easily accommodate taller buildings.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I actually thought the density numbers they have are on the high side, think they got the heights right though for most areas

Yeah we seem to quietly disagree on that one frequently. I think that the density of the core and areas surrounding skytrain stations should really be amped up, we are engaging in a one time build-out of a lot of that space, and I fear it may be at densities that are too low to both create a really vibrant core and too low to properly capitalize on our massive capital investments into rapid transit. One thing I wish they would do would be to allow more density near skytrain stations in exchange for special contributions to translink to either operate the existing lines or expand the system, which I guess brings me to your second point...

I also like that the city used a concept I've brought up with them numerous times in the past of density bonusing where the base density is lower but if social housing units or rental units are included that a higher density could be built. This has the potential to provide needed units cheaply w/o costing taxpayers a fortune.

I may be missing something here but hasn't the city been doing that for quite some time, allowing increased height/density in exchange for community amenities, some of which are social housing?

[jlousa]

Yes, the city has been doing that for years on a case by case basis via the rezoning process, and that leads to conflicts with neighbours as you don't know how much density/height will be landing next door even if you've done your due diligence. The new plan spells it out right off the bat, for an example something along the lines of you can build 4 stories 2.5FSR market housing or go 6 stories 3.0FSR if completely rental. Takes the guess work out of the equation, neighbours know what might happen next door and developers know what they can do w/o spending 6months negotiating back and forth with planners and then hoping council approves it.

I don't think we disagree too much on the matter of higher density, I just think going from the 3 story walk ups which I'm sure we both agree is much too low for the area, to FSRs of 7 and 8.75 is some areas is a large jump, heck I don't think anyone considers the Yaletown area as low density and most of those towers are only in the ~5FSR range. So we are talking some serious density landing in the WE.

Around Skytrain stations I'm all for higher density, heck even as high as the ~7- 8.75 FSR we're talking about here, my issue is the height should be responsive to the surrounding neighbourhood. I think if the Grandview plan talked about up to 16 Floors with additional 12-14 Flr towers at the Safeway site and a hefty podium we'd have seen much less community backlash then proposing 30flrs.

[Vin]

With so many restrictions, even on a case by case approval process, potential developers of awesome projects would not even bother to scout for lots here. There is simply no guarantee that they well get their vision built. What's left are mediocre local developers building the same ol'. That's why buildings in Vancouver are so meh. And when locals get used to such mediocrity, they simply resist the awesome, and that's what we are facing now.

IMHO, west end beyond the Alberni/Thurlow stretches should be redeveloped to outdo Coal Harbour or Yaletowm. There is simply nowhere else downtown to expand to. Going up is the only way. Nimbys are simply having a false sense of entitlement around here.

[jlousa]

Meeting was carried over from this morning.
Here is the staff presentation for those that are interested.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20131120/documents/cfsc1presentation.pdf

[jlousa]

Meeting finally over, plan approved.

[LeftCoaster]

Great news! Thanks for the updates. Any amendments or is was it approved as is?

[phesto]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Great news! Thanks for the updates. Any amendments or is was it approved as is?

There were some minor amendments. Not sure exactly what they are.

Adrienne Carr opposed the Plan on each item.

[red-paladin]

Great news.

[Klazu]

I just posted this in the Future Renderings thread in Canada section, so why not post it here as well. This is taken from the community plan and shows excellently how there are many potential 150-220 meter towers underway to Downtown in the next 10 years. I find this plan very exciting and can't wait for some of there sites to start transforming.