General Vancouver Updates

[WarrenC12]

Looks good! Always tough to deal with odd shaped corners, this does a good job. New MEC, Maynards redevelopment and this will really change the area.

[officedweller]

More pics from the Rezoning report:

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1800-1880main/index.htm

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against additional height in this area, I'm just emphasizing what I feel to be the most problematic issue which is the FSR.

Yes. The fsr makes no sense. This building looks like it takes up maybe 1/4 of the site. What's the rest or the site going to be? Grass? Ugh. They should stick another "duke" here

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by officedweller

More pics from the Rezoning report:

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1800-1880main/index.htm

Looks fantastic.

Reminds me a lot of Woodwards.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Canopy structure over the atrium being erected at The Duke.

Pics from Acton Ostry Twitter:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Taken Feb 19th by Yellow Fever:

Originally Posted by officedweller

The Duke from Acton Ostry twitter today:

March 6 '17, my pics

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

More pics from the Rezoning report:

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1800-1880main/index.htm

Here's a pic of the area from yesterday:



Bonus: Demo in progress of the new MEC site (bottom right).

Interesting to see the density just off Main St. The redevelopment of Main itself is taking time.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Here's a pic of the area from yesterday:


Interesting to see the density just off Main St. The redevelopment of Main itself is taking time.

You're right: Main St 2nd to 7th is taking a while to get developed, although there's Ellesworth now under construction and maybe three more (including the Cressey rental) likely to get developed in the next few years.

The Mount Pleasant Plan that allowed the development of that strip along Main St was only adopted in 2010, so that explains why there are no earlier projects with residential.

The residential buildings in your image are supposedly artist-live work (although some buildings seem to really be condo apartments) and the earliest date back to the early 1990s when the I-C3 zone was created that allowed them to be built. That zoning was adopted around 25 years ago, and there are still several sites that haven't yet been redeveloped with residential. It's a good example of how 'zone it and they will come' isn't necessarily true, even in the most buoyant development market.

[Pinion]

My father in law owns a unit in that grey building with red accents behind it, had his HVAC maintenance office in an upstairs loft while someone rented out the bottom. Very weird. He's retired now though so it's pure rental. He'll be happy he's keeping his amazing downtown view.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

March 6 '17, my pics

Some more angles of The Duke on Kingsway.


March 10 '17, my pics

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Proposed at 45th & Yew:

Proposed affordable housing project on former Kerrisdale church site faces backlash
http://www.cknw.com/2017/02/23/277358/


http://www.cknw.com/2017/02/23/277358/


http://www.cknw.com/2017/02/23/277358/

Below are my photos from the Open House on February 27:















Not surprisingly, it's a fairly straightforward project since it's now on it's third revision. By the time I arrived, there was probably a couple hundred people at the open house; a figure that probably doubled in traffic by the end of the night. While there were obviously a good deal of Ryerson Neighbour Committee members at the event, I believe I saw a couple members of Abundant Housing Vancouver as well. The neighbourhood group seems to be a fractious bunch, with some totally opposed to the tower, while others claim they just want a couple more stories lopped off. Overall, from eyeballing written submissions on tables and overhearing conversations, I would say it was a fairly mixed bag of both opposed and in favor.

With regards to the structure, the western buildings are being designed to blend with the church. The affordable housing will be in a stucco style material that will be similar in colour to the church, whereas the activity center will be set to closely match the stonework of the church.

The east face design was a little more unclear. The housing portion will likely be done in a two toned brick with the peaks and awnings done in a brown stained wood. As to the materials that will be used for the tower, though I spoke with the architect, I don't recall the answer. Personally I feel like this project is going to be in for a heck of a fight.

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2165-2195and2205-2291w45thave/index.htm

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Interesting to see the density just off Main St. The redevelopment of Main itself is taking time.

Reminder of the proposal for the east side of Main & 5th:

2106 Main St.


https://changingcitybook.com/2016/06/03/2106-main-street/

Note that the angled upper storeys are in direct response to the View Cone down Main St
(this diagram is from the other project @ Main & 2nd):


http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1800-1880main/documents/SiteContext.pdf

[Feathered Friend]

The City has received a revised application package which responds to comments received by staff, the public and Urban Design Panel. There are no changes to the site density, public benefit package or overall heights. Major changes from the previous application (December 24, 2015) include:

• an increase in affordable housing units from 411 to 540
• an increase in market residential floor area
• decrease in the footprint of underground parking structures to increase opportunities for tree retention and stormwater management
• clarification of the vision for the overall site, the urban farm and neighbourhood precincts
• redesign of public spaces including the plaza and high street to accomodate a more diverse range of uses
• a redistribution of building heights in parcels G and H to minimize shadowing on the urban farm and to provide better height variation.

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/pearsondogwood/index.htm

More specifics

• Decreased area of underground parking footprints, especially below the High Street Commons and within
• Parcel H, to increase the amount of tree free growth and stormwater management area.
  
• Defined two distinct precincts (neighbourhoods) within the plan, based on landscape treatment and building
• height / scale
  
• Changed building heights, most notably: Parcel G tower G1 reduced to 16 stories to minimize farm
• shadowing. The following buildings were increased in height: F2 from 23 to 24 stories; G7 from 11 to 12
• stories; and H1 from 18 to 20 stories.

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/application...icationdescriptionansummaryofchanges.pdf

The two precincts are roughly divided on a diagonal axis. Their respective names are The Park Precinct and The Great Streets Precinct.

[jlousa]

*l* So more units all around, decrease parking and at the same time we are hearing about the COV not pursuing a 57th Ave station, guess the city is counting on self driving ubers to be rolling out anyday now.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by jlousa

*l* So more units all around, decrease parking and at the same time we are hearing about the COV not pursuing a 57th Ave station, guess the city is counting on self driving ubers to be rolling out anyday now.

Uber? Not if Geoff Meggs has his way!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jlousa

*l* So more units all around, decrease parking and at the same time we are hearing about the COV not pursuing a 57th Ave station, guess the city is counting on self driving ubers to be rolling out anyday now.

We heard one poster claiming that the City weren't pursuing a 57th Avenue station, but there's been no other evidence of that. Rather, in this revised scheme there's a space reserved for the future transit station, and explicit reference to it in the application.

It seems reasonable to assume that it's not just the Pearson project that would pay for a station here; there's Langara Gardens and development potential on the east side of Cambie. It's also possible that there could be other infrastructure funding available to help fund the station. (That's purely conjecture, but it seems possible).

The station isn't urgently needed until there's more development here, and the first hurdle is getting the Urban Design Panel on board after their non-support last November. The new revisions seem to address those concerns, so with luck things can move forward and there will be greater clarity about the future station.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

well, reducing underground parking will lead to one sure thing. no matter how central a location is, the West End, without underground parking in buildings, you get the West End parking catastrophe.

compare that to Yaletown, where there is no issue because they built enough underground spots. the city said by decreasing the requirement for underground parking it will decrease the cost of units. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. it did decrease costs, just costs of construction.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

well, reducing underground parking will lead to one sure thing. no matter how central a location is, the West End, without underground parking in buildings, you get the West End parking catastrophe.

compare that to Yaletown, where there is no issue because they built enough underground spots. the city said by decreasing the requirement for underground parking it will decrease the cost of units. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. it did decrease costs, just costs of construction.

No, West End parking is a catastrophe because the permits were cheap. Now that they are closer to market price, that will help. West End buildings have over 50% empty parking spots in their parkades, useless use of space.

In Yaletown, OV and other newer areas, parking minimums get relaxed for developers who instead create permanent car sharing spots and other transportation amenities (big bike parking areas, etc.)

What that does is allow people to buy a parking spot or not with their unit, saving money if they want, or buying one if they think they need a parking spot.

There are no residential permit spots in Yaletown or OV, so the free market rules parking on the street.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, West End parking is a catastrophe because the permits were cheap. Now that they are closer to market price, that will help. West End buildings have over 50% empty parking spots in their parkades, useless use of space.

In Yaletown, OV and other newer areas, parking minimums get relaxed for developers who instead create permanent car sharing spots and other transportation amenities (big bike parking areas, etc.)

What that does is allow people to buy a parking spot or not with their unit, saving money if they want, or buying one if they think they need a parking spot.

There are no residential permit spots in Yaletown or OV, so the free market rules parking on the street.

of course them being cheap was a major factor, many building in the West End don't have parking though. there are about 1.5 spots for every car in the WE, but many buildings have none, while others have excess. unless you are opening up buildings to non-residents then there will always be a decent amount of cars on the street. i am quite supportive of the raise in price although with all the bitching going on i think they should have metered the whole thing, 24/7 @ $1.00/hr. people use their parking permits to do shopping and parking all over the West End, when that is NOT what it is for. then people complain there's no parking by their apartment, well no shit, people are using it as free parking in commercial areas. smaller areas can combat this, but then if that smaller area is full the person is not allowed to park elsewhere.

spots used to be included with units when they were built back in 01/02. i have family that bought on Marinaside Crescent when the buildings were first built, given 1 spot with the option to buy more if they wanted. whereas now, the units are more expensive, and now you need to pay a high price for a spot if you want one. the units never got cheaper with the removal of the spot, the price stayed the same while "optional extras," which used to be included, were added to the price; so it is now more expensive.

no, there are not, but there are parking meters all over. even after the meters go offline, there really aren't that many cars on the street due to the abundance of off-street parking. this is how it should be, the West End situation shouldn't be encouraged elsewhere in the city. there should be enough parking in buildings, such as Yaletown has, and it doesn't matter how much parking the city forces developer to build or not build, the market price of a unit will stay the same.

the city needs to stop its war on cars in this regard as it does more harm then good, it makes the city subsidize developers by needing to administer street permits/meters and creating an inefficient use of street space.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

spots used to be included with units when they were built back in 01/02. i have family that bought on Marinaside Crescent when the buildings were first built, given 1 spot with the option to buy more if they wanted. whereas now, the units are more expensive, and now you need to pay a high price for a spot if you want one. the units never got cheaper with the removal of the spot, the price stayed the same while "optional extras," which used to be included, were added to the price; so it is now more expensive.

no, there are not, but there are parking meters all over. even after the meters go offline, there really aren't that many cars on the street due to the abundance of off-street parking. this is how it should be, the West End situation shouldn't be encouraged elsewhere in the city. there should be enough parking in buildings, such as Yaletown has, and it doesn't matter how much parking the city forces developer to build or not build, the market price of a unit will stay the same.

the city needs to stop its war on cars in this regard as it does more harm then good, it makes the city subsidize developers by needing to administer street permits/meters and creating an inefficient use of street space.

Your first two paragraphs contradict each other... on one hand you complain that parking became an "expensive extra" instead of a free perk, and then you say that market prices are what they are.

Parking is a part of what you are buying in a unit, just like a storage locker, access to a gym, a fancy stove, or whatever. It all has a price. The market settles on that price based on supply and demand, which today is something north of $40k in the downtown peninsula.

And now the city is opening up the rules and yet it's a "war on cars?". I don't think enough people understand how expensive land is, and how parking is a huge part of that. I don't think any street parking should be allowed. Let private operators provide parking at whatever price the market will allow. Free up the roadspace for movement by cars, buses, bikes, etc.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

there are about 1.5 spots for every car in the WE, but many buildings have none, while others have excess. unless you are opening up buildings to non-residents then there will always be a decent amount of cars on the street.

As you note, there are more than enough off-street spaces in the West End, but because renters have to pay for them, and the City's on-street parking permits were much cheaper, many car owners chose to buy a permit, even though there aren't nearly enough on-street parking spots for all the permit holders.

There are 16,000 registered vehicles in the West End, and 6,000 people have Parking Permits. There are just 2,700 on-street spaces, and 22,000 off-street.

The method the City is using to get more of those 6,000 permit holders to use the empty spots under buildings is to charge something similar to the price of off-street parking to allow future permit applications to park on-street. (Existing permit holders pay a lower price while they still hold a permit).

Clearly the City can't magically 'create' 3,000 extra on-street spaces. Have you another solution?