Downtown Vancouver Updates

[officedweller]

Thanks.

Here are the relevant pages for lower Alberni and lower Robson.

West of Cardero:
White Spot site and directly west across Cardero can go to 385 feet.

North side of Robson:
The lot across the alley to the south can go to 300 feet.
The lot kitty corner on the alley can go to 210 feet.


http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-end-community-plan.pdf


http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-end-community-plan.pdf


http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-end-community-plan.pdf

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I wonder how tall the north side of Robson can go?

With the exception of Burrard and Alberni Streets (which really are not the West End at all) and some timid increases in allowable growth along Lower Robson and Lower Davie, the West End Community Plan seems to be more about restricting development in the West End than liberating it:

Robson Village (both sides): maximum of 3 floors (or 21 metres)
Davie Village (both sides): maximum of 2 floors (or 18 metres)
Denman Village (both sides): maximum of 2 floors (or 18 metres)

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-end-community-plan.pdf

[officedweller]

Marked-up aerial:


http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?wh...UGFuZWxUYXNrJTI0JTI0MSUyMiUzQW51bGwlN0Q=

[Prometheus]

Yeah, Alberni (which, of course, is more Coal Harbour than West End) is basically where all the serious action is going to be.

[connect2source]

Limiting the 'villages' to 2-3 storeys is a great plan!! We need sunlight for retail and community hubs to thrive, dark retail streets fail, look at Coal Harbour.

The allowable heights around the Westbank purchase are great!! It won't block any sunlight to lower Robson as they're north of it and will allow more development near Coal Harbour now that "triangle west" is pretty much built-out.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

With the exception of Burrard and Alberni Streets (which really are not the West End at all) and some timid increases in allowable growth along Lower Robson and Lower Davie, the West End Community Plan seems to be more about restricting development in the West End than liberating it:

Robson Village (both sides): maximum of 3 floors (or 21 metres)
Davie Village (both sides): maximum of 2 floors (or 18 metres)
Denman Village (both sides): maximum of 2 floors (or 18 metres)

http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/west-end-community-plan.pdf

That's because the current council has some halfbaked notion that allowing residential above retail on streets like Denman is going to cause some apocalyptic surge in noise complaints that they don't want to deal with. Just tell people if they live on a busy street prepare for some noise!

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Limiting the 'villages' to 2-3 storeys is a great plan!! We need sunlight for retail and community hubs to thrive, dark retail streets fail...

So I shouldn't be able to find any thriving retail streets in North America or Europe with buildings taller than 2-3 storeys? Come to think of it, isn't there a lot of taller buildings right here in Gastown, which is an ascending retail/commercial district, while Robson, Davie and Denman are in decline?



Moreover, would taller building heights on the north sides of Robson and Davie and the east side of Denman actually block out the afternoon sun?

[dleung]

I don't mind sunny streets with low-rises, as they serve as a relief from high-rise districts... but what is a condo podium from coquitlam doing here? The English bay Cactus Club or the Watermark at Kits both have more to do with West End heritage than this plastic, faux (art deco?) pile.

[logan5]

re lower robson -

"consider increased density through social housing or rental housing contributions"

. With the restriction on floor plates (5500 sq. ft.), does this mean they're allowing greater heights in certain cases where the developer has included social or rental housing?

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Marked-up aerial:


http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?wh...UGFuZWxUYXNrJTI0JTI0MSUyMiUzQW51bGwlN0Q=

This is great, thank you! So much room for densification that will improve the area a lot one day.

[red-paladin]

Going to be interesting to see what is proposed for that site. I can't imaging it being worthwhile to buy and demolish a functional office building to replace it with a mid height building.

[urbancanadian]

^I think you can guarantee it will be one of the city's taller buildings once all is said and done. Personally, I'm quite glad Westbank bought the site - much better chance of seeing at least some of the office space retained (rebuilt).

I recall reading somewhere that with the success of Vancouver House thus far, Gillespie had said that he wanted to go with international architects (BIG, and others) for all of his developments. I think he meant high-profile downtown developments, to which this would apply I would think? Anyway, assuming that this is a luxury development, I'm hoping for something very nice here.

----------

You can add me to the camp that appreciates the low-rise scale of Robson, South Granville, 4th Ave, Main, Commercial, etc. It's only a handful of blocks anyway on either Robson or Davie that will remain as such - and all of Denman. The rest will be in the 10-30 floor range.

It certainly helps prevent from having the montonous podium retail spaces that we would inevitably see with towers. I would love to open it up to more creative, dutch-style building types, but it's just not going to happen. I think this way, once a retail space becomes obsolete, it's easy to knock down and build to the retailer's needs... Which is what is starting to happen on Robson.

As for the new retail on Denman, it sure is bland. I find these projects frustrating because there was a chance to build something appealing, but instead the owner went with something... lazy. And cheap. For example, they could have gone for something with more of a sawtooth profile, with varying, more distinctive materials. It would cost a bit more, but you would likely have more offers from tenants looking for something different.

[Vin]

Thanks Officedweller. That would show how dense that little block will be should the 500 footers be constructed.

It's just mind boggling to imagine the waste of a good 6-8 storey office block being torn down for another condo, especially since merely a few blocks away on Denman, buildings are only limited to 1-2 stories. No wonder the price of land is so artificially inflated in Vancouver, especially those lots designated for taller structures.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

You can add me to the camp that appreciates the low-rise scale of Robson, South Granville, 4th Ave, Main, Commercial, etc. It's only a handful of blocks anyway on either Robson or Davie that will remain as such - and all of Denman. The rest will be in the 10-30 floor range.

It certainly helps prevent from having the montonous podium retail spaces that we would inevitably see with towers. I would love to open it up to more creative, dutch-style building types, but it's just not going to happen. I think this way, once a retail space becomes obsolete, it's easy to knock down and build to the retailer's needs... Which is what is starting to happen on Robson.

As for the new retail on Denman, it sure is bland. I find these projects frustrating because there was a chance to build something appealing, but instead the owner went with something... lazy. And cheap. For example, they could have gone for something with more of a sawtooth profile, with varying, more distinctive materials. It would cost a bit more, but you would likely have more offers from tenants looking for something different.

Agreed with all of this. I think having low-rise shopping streets is important. It's funny how many people on this forum complain about the blandness of podium retail in so many new condo projects, and how they fail to draw exciting tenants, and yet there is a sentiment in this thread to want more of it to replace low-rise retail.

That being said, the project on Denman is essentially a condo podium without the condo portion and should not have been allowed, especially given its location close to the busiest beach in the city. One thing that I appreciate about much of the 50's-80's bland, short and (otherwise) ugly retail is the fact that tenants can do whatever they want with their storefronts, generally creating a more interesting looking stretch of retail in otherwise nondescript retail spaces. Buildings like this are monotonous, great for bank branches, flower shops, salons and Starbucks I suppose.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Agreed with all of this. I think having low-rise shopping streets is important. It's funny how many people on this forum complain about the blandness of podium retail in so many new condo projects, and how they fail to draw exciting tenants, and yet there is a sentiment in this thread to want more of it to replace low-rise retail.

That being said, the project on Denman is essentially a condo podium without the condo portion and should not have been allowed, especially given its location close to the busiest beach in the city. One thing that I appreciate about much of the 50's-80's bland, short and (otherwise) ugly retail is the fact that tenants can do whatever they want with their storefronts, generally creating a more interesting looking stretch of retail in otherwise nondescript retail spaces. Buildings like this are monotonous, great for bank branches, flower shops, salons and Starbucks I suppose.

Why does a condo podium need to have bland storefronts? One needs to think outside the "Vancouver box" when looking into this issue. Also, developers can be discouraged to construct uninspiring podiums by having a good City Council rejecting anything deemed too bland (again, if the City is any good).

What started this conversation is that Denman is seeing this new 2-storey retail building with generic and boring shopfronts, which is an absolute no-no for a downtown location. There are many other options to make this part of Denman more interesting, and planners don't have to look far for those kinds of inspiration. For instance, the storefronts at Gastown or in City of Victoria's heritage area are anything but "bland". One should also realize that many of them have condos, hotels or offices upstairs too, and not just wasteful 2-storey structures.

The City of Vancouver has taken the "village in downtown" concept much too literally. Might as well put in some English cottages with quaint chimneys and picket fences while they're at it, or throw in a couple of free-range chicken to run around for good measure.

[officedweller]

I don't mind the new building on Denman - it's not "destination" retail space, but it will provide functional retail (often condo podiums are pierced by elevator cores or other areas that create awkward spaces.

In order to create a "blank canvas" onto which a store could create its own unique façade, the base building would have to be very, very plain (I.e. without an awning). I doubt the City would allow that. I think the only way you'd get interesting facades is if the owner/developer/landlord has a tenant lined up pre-construction and the tenant dictates the design (i.e. destination retail).

[logan5]

These generic retail units are about as plain as it gets. A blank canvas is exactly what should be provided to a prospective business. We see the results of this along Commercial Dr., 4th Ave., etc. These newer types of retail do not improve over the years either. The stretch of Main between 17th and 19th has these retail units that have been around for 20 years now, and it's the same sorry collection of tenants, and the same sad expressionless facade. It's by far the deadest part of Main. Frustrating is the right word for it.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by logan5

These generic retail units are about as plain as it gets. A blank canvas is exactly what should be provided to a prospective business. We see the results of this along Commercial Dr., 4th Ave., etc. These newer types of retail do not improve over the years either. The stretch of Main between 17th and 19th has these retail units that have been around for 20 years now, and it's the same sorry collection of tenants, and the same sad expressionless facade. It's by far the deadest part of Main. Frustrating is the right word for it.

It's amazing how much more vibrant Main Street is on either side of that 2 block stretch. It's painful walking past it.

[red-paladin]

I can't wait until there is a proper development on this notorious garden-rubbleyard.
Every time I go by there it reminds me of slums in the 70s.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.281879,-1...3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSZ5FkatBmGx08fp1m3XORg!2e0

Housing to replace Downtown Eastside garden
APRIL 8, 2015, POSTED BY MIKE HOWELL

...

What’s new is the City of Vancouver wants to work out a deal with the PHS — which still exists under a government-appointed board — on a piece of property at 58 West Hastings.

The property was once owned by developer Concord Pacific, which gave it to the city as a community amenity contribution in return for the rezoning of its property at 10 Terry Fox Way.

Some of you are likely familiar with the chunk of land on West Hastings, which was turned into a garden a few years ago. The PHS had operated the garden under an agreement with Concord for at least three years.

Now that the city recently took over title of the property, the PHS wants to ensure it can continue to operate the garden. The city has suggested a nominal rent fee of $10 that will carry the nonprofit until at least November 30, 2015.

A city staff report going before council next week recommends the partnership with the PHS, saying the garden and urban agriculture programs, along with bee hives managed by Hives for Humanity, “add positive contributions to the neighbourhood and contribute to many of council’s priorities and goals outlined in the city food and healthy city strategies, as well as the Greenest City Action Plan.”

But why only have an agreement in place until November?

“The garden is an ideal use of the site until the site is redeveloped for housing purposes anticipated in 2016,” the report said.

The report didn’t specifically say what type of housing it has planned for the site, which at one time served as a protest camp during the 2010 Winter Olympics.

So I phoned up Vision Coun. Geoff Meggs to see if he could shed some light on what “housing purposes” actually means. Meggs said the city hasn’t decided whether it will be social housing, marketing housing or a mix.

“Everything I know about it is in the report and that’s all that’s been decided by council,” Meggs said. “Under the Downtown Eastside plan, [staff] would obviously prioritize affordable housing as a key goal but we haven’t seen any specific staff proposal.”

Added Meggs: “I know that various people have expressed an interest [in the redevelopment of the property] but I don’t think it’s gone further than that.”

.....

From: http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/blogs/...-garden-1.1817686?blogRssReaderId=7.6871

[hollywoodnorth]

I don't remember seeing these renders (preliminary of course) posted back in december for the Reliance micro-suite project where the 7-11 is now on Davie and Hornby. Interesting they put a Whole Foods in the renders ... also I really like that corner cut out and the dark black color ... looks 'Toronto' to me

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/micro-condos-canada-real-estate_n_6352118.html