Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C

[christmas]

Oakridge Municipal Town Centre

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-oakridge-municipal-town-centre

tldr:

A new pilot project that will introduce affordable rental homes in the Oakridge area is the City of Vancouver’s latest approach to tackling the housing crisis.
...

This proposal, if approved, would push Oakridge towards become Vancouver’s only Municipal Town Centre, which is a classification that areas such as Brentwood and Lougheed also share.

The proposal will be presented to City Council on Tuesday, and a decision could be made later this year or in early 2018 following public consultation. If the pilot project is successful, it could be expanded city-wide to potentially spur thousands of new required affordable rental homes.

...

However, this proposal and its housing unit allocations does not include the major redevelopments of Oakridge Centre, the old Vancouver Transit Centre (Heather Lands), and the former RCMP headquarters as each project has its own separate planning process.

[LeftCoaster]

Looks promising. That's the density Oakridge should have been zoned for from the outset.

Let's see if council has the stones to approve this.

[officedweller]

Awesome!

Agree with LeftCoaster that all 4 corners of the intersection should have been upzoned from the outset.

[jlousa]

I wouldn't be surprised if some developers end up leaving the bonus density on the table and forgo having the build the affordable rentals the city is targeting. I suspect most will be waiting to see the details of the plan that ends up getting approved before proceeding one way or the other.

[logan5]

It doesn't sound like foregoing the below market housing is an option.

I'm wondering what's the point of designating the area a "municipal town centre". Does this give the City some advantage they would normally not have?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

doubt it'll happen; or if it does, look at the Chinatown plan.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Awesome!

Agree with LeftCoaster that all 4 corners of the intersection should have been upzoned from the outset.

The plan contemplated 12 storeys on the other three corners that aren't the Oakridge Centre. It's possible the reason that the owners haven't taken those opportunities forward is because the plan also said "For sites immediately adjacent to the intersection of Cambie Street and 41st Avenue, staff may investigate further allowing mixed-use buildings beyond the anticipated 12 storeys, to be evaluated at each rezoning in the context of the principles enumerated in this plan, as part of future planning and community consultation in Phase 3."

That's what's happening now - but the Phase 3 program is now going far further and looking at permitting a larger area to be developed at much higher densities than just townhouses one street back from Cambie and 41st. It'll be interesting to see if the significant community backlash to higher densities seen in Marpole, Grandview Woodland and more recently Chinatown will cause Council to think again - but given the emphasis on providing affordable rental here, that might not make a difference.

[VanK]

The discussion on the table is that the city wants to see 30% of the units built as affordable housing as the CAC. Basically the developer will be required to build the 30% affordable housing and gift it to the city (for free) as the full CAC payment. So instead of Community Amenity Contribution money going to parks, rec centres, libraries, infrastructure to better the surrounding community it is affecting, they want to use it all on below market rents for new residents to the area to they can live in a prime area of West Side of Vancouver (at a discount)? That doesn't seem like a "community contribution" to me.

[Vin]

That's more like it. Wonder why the City had a sudden change of heart. Note that this is complete departure from the official Cambie corridor OCP, which only allowed up to 6 stories on Cambie and 41st, with the exception of 12 stories at the intersection, and SFH behind intact.

Another example why mall areas are awesome to add massive density, but only if the City has far-sighted planners.

Unfortunately, due to the previous OCP, some of the lots already have 6 storey structures built....what a waste and I blame Vancouver for its short-sightedness. The developers who were too impatient to build are now screwed for losing out on profit-margin potentials.

Well, at least the City is starting to follow what others are doing.

[LeftCoaster]

The City has a new chief planner, that may be a clue...

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by VanK

The discussion on the table is that the city wants to see 30% of the units built as affordable housing as the CAC. Basically the developer will be required to build the 30% affordable housing and gift it to the city (for free) as the full CAC payment. So instead of Community Amenity Contribution money going to parks, rec centres, libraries, infrastructure to better the surrounding community it is affecting, they want to use it all on below market rents for new residents to the area to they can live in a prime area of West Side of Vancouver (at a discount)? That doesn't seem like a "community contribution" to me.

Won't the Oakridge site's CAC contribution go towards those things? I thought some of it was going into the mall.

[officedweller]

Now there's another area called Kerrisdale that should also be designated a municipal town centre...

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Now there's another area called Kerrisdale that should also be designated a municipal town centre...

Joyce-Collingwood too.

[logan5]

For me this is the most interesting development to hit this forum in a while. Vancouver's version of Yonge/Eglinton (which should have happened a long time ago). And I think build-out will happen at a rapid rate - similar to what we see happening in SEFC.

[excel]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Now there's another area called Kerrisdale that should also be designated a municipal town centre...

Kerrisdale doesn't have a train station.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Now there's another area called Kerrisdale that should also be designated a municipal town centre...

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Joyce-Collingwood too.

Originally Posted by logan5

For me this is the most interesting development to hit this forum in a while. Vancouver's version of Yonge/Eglinton (which should have happened a long time ago). And I think build-out will happen at a rapid rate - similar to what we see happening in SEFC.

Sadly outside of Oakridge and Joyce I don't see any other municipal town centres developing in CoV - I hear howls of 'you're destroying the neighbourhood!' instead. Maybe they should upzone the arterials comparable to what's proposed for Cambie (leaving things like schools and parks alone of course) as some mix of residential / retail / office with SFH on the residential streets behind them. This would be bound to start in areas east of Cambie as I can hear the west side howling at any suggestion of change.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by excel

Kerrisdale doesn't have a train station.

^This. Maybe about 30-50 years from now, when the Arbutus tram and 41st SkyTrain are built out and all the NIMBYs are gone.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Won't the Oakridge site's CAC contribution go towards those things? I thought some of it was going into the mall.

Portions of the massive CAC's that will be collected from the Oakridge Mall development will go back into the Mall development but None of the future CAC allocation for the sites surrounding the mall will go to fund area improving assets. As of now the City is proposing extracting 100% of the CAC's towards building below market (affordable) housing for all of the sites that will be upzoned around the mall. COV needs better / more swimming pools. Take a look at North Vancouver District. thats something they do well.. build great recreation centres.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

^This. Maybe about 30-50 years from now, when the Arbutus tram and 41st SkyTrain are built out and all the NIMBYs are gone.

NIMBYs will always exist, all you need is a council that listens to the majority who elected them instead of the loud minority that protest everything.

The most vigilant NIMBYs in my neighborhood live in towers and don't want their view blocked, even though their building blocked someone else's views.

[Shift]

By 'affordable rental homes' they mean $1700 a month for a 1 bedroom?