Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by Vanville

Passed by 1540 Haro the other day:

Another "renoviction" by folks who believe only the cream of the crop, so to speak, ought to live in these prime areas:

How long has this been up for? I remember seeing it a year or two ago.

Also I just wish the cit(ies) of Metro Van start to rezone SFH lots, all these bigger sites that had rental lowrises have been snapped up (West End, Metrotown, Burquitlam). The Oakridge Town Centre plan is a step in the right direction.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Vanville

Any beaches in Chilliwack?

We are in the same boat. I have a century of family history in Vancouver, more than half of it in Kitsilano. I don't even bother trying to find a place west of Cambie anymore.

It's a joke, and many Vancouverites are definitely NOT in on it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

First, I want to say I don't think anyone on here views those being displaced as "losers," I certainly don't. In my own case, if not for a fortunate set of circumstances I would have very likely ended up living in shelters/on the street and suffering with a permanent disability. I understand the stress of the idea of being forced from somewhere you call home.

That said, there's nothing (baring natural disasters) that will reverse the trend that is sweeping the Downtown Core. People with political agendas will blame the level of government they're currently opposing (as already demonstrated here), but the reality is there's too many factors contributing to the housing affordability crisis to blame it on any one factor.

Could the civic parties have allowed more density/sped up the development process? Sure. Could the provincial and federal governments provided more funding for housing? Absolutely. Did the low interest rates needed to keep the rest of the economy running do serious damage? You betcha. Does the weather/scenery/global location/policies make Vancouver extremely attractive to those outside the city/province/country? Obviously. In short, the only way to really combat this crisis is to build more density, especially with a target for government/subsidized housing for the middle class...

I don't buy the "there's nothing we can do" argument. As I've said before one quick solution would be to bar foreign purchases of real estate outright. Why should any Canadian meekly accept being driven from their neighbourhood so we can provide investment opportunities people who don't live and work here?

When you've wrung foreign money out of the picture, then we can talk about what density is really needed.

[Aroundtheworld]

This is probably not going to be popular with some folks here, but this is how I afford to live downtown:

• I own a 2-Bedroom apartment. I only use one room
• The other room I rent out on Airbnb pretty much full-time.

I bought the place earlier this year in Crosstown. I know that during the low months, it will still pay for the mortgage and all the other fees. I'm lucky that I live in a building that pretty much allows Airbnb. I also do enjoy hosting and connecting with people around the world.

Another comment I will also make, (and this is probably of no consolation to you FeatheredFriend) is that if there's any area that will cope well with redevelopment it will be the West End. A lot of disruption happens when people are reno-victed and can't find equivalent housing stock in their neighbourhood. The good thing about the West End is that it has a lot of housing stock and aged housing stock at that. This means the area should stay more affordable and accessible compared to other parts of the region.

[officedweller]

Demolition at The Smithe site:

Pics by me yesterday:

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I don't buy the "there's nothing we can do" argument. As I've said before one quick solution would be to bar foreign purchases of real estate outright. Why should any Canadian meekly accept being driven from their neighbourhood so we can provide investment opportunities people who don't live and work here?

When you've wrung foreign money out of the picture, then we can talk about what density is really needed.

Ah yes that argument... If such a populist answer was really that easy to implement, I'm sure one of the Federal Parties would have proposed it already. Let's be honest, that's far outside the hands of the city, and is just a smoke screen for hindering polices that could actually be effective and implemented.

Cities, like all things, need to change, evolve, and adapt in order to survive. What is the future for those areas of Downtown and the surrounding neighbourhoods if they refuse to add density? Are we really going to say, no more homes because the middle income residents shouldn't encroach on the space of those with long histories in the city or absurd levels of wealth?

I really wonder what would happen to the rates charged for rent if the density of the West End, Collingwood or even the Cambie Corridor was implemented in more areas of the city.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

This is probably not going to be popular with some folks here, but this is how I afford to live downtown:

• I own a 2-Bedroom apartment. I only use one room
• The other room I rent out on Airbnb pretty much full-time.

I bought the place earlier this year in Crosstown. I know that during the low months, it will still pay for the mortgage and all the other fees. I'm lucky that I live in a building that pretty much allows Airbnb. I also do enjoy hosting and connecting with people around the world.

Another comment I will also make, (and this is probably of no consolation to you FeatheredFriend) is that if there's any area that will cope well with redevelopment it will be the West End. A lot of disruption happens when people are reno-victed and can't find equivalent housing stock in their neighbourhood. The good thing about the West End is that it has a lot of housing stock and aged housing stock at that. This means the area should stay more affordable and accessible compared to other parts of the region.

I don't have any criticism for you. Sure, you could have roommates, but you are living in your home so who is anyone to say boo to you. Frankly, anyone that thinks you are the problem needs to look at the wasted space all of the single family home zoning is taking up.
I'm not sure why I need consoling? As mentioned, I too am one of those extremely fortunate enough to own a home in Vancouver. Of course, I worry about what my future children will do for housing, and hate that my inlaws are priced out of the city, but I still recognize that I was lucky, nothing more.
I agree with your assessment on the West End. While I feel the West End policy was rather conservative, there's no real way to argue that it doesn't preserve the ability for many existing residents to remain. I would love to see the levels of density and diversity that helps the West End thrive spread to more of Vancouver and the wider region.

[Feathered Friend]

Getting back on topic.

THAT the Panel Recommend the Resubmission of the project with the following recommendations
to be reviewed by City Staff:

• Re-evaluate the ramp solution in order for the panel to have adequate information to evaluate the proposed design
• Resolve parking access for a better relationship on Harwood Street to the building
• Pay more attention to passive shading elements on the building and
• Reconsider the use of tinted glass to stay within the West End tower expression

Related Commentary: Overall the panel noted that the building form, massing, and setbacks work well into the context of the West End. The height and extended floor plate are well done. The base of the building is successful.
However, the panel noted that the parking and access to the lane with regards to the ramp was unresolved. One panel mentioned the ramp can be taken into the building in a way that the public realm would be benefited.
Keep the integrity of the tower. Enhancement will be needed at the punch window base expression. The trellis feature could be developed further and be extended eastward.
The service areas will be compromised with a different solution. Revisit the slopes to reduce the incline. The two access entries should be side by side, provide perforations in the devising wall.
Consider bridge over the ground floor amenities. There is not enough amenity space, according to one panel member, but another panel member thought the amenity spaces were well laid out and
generous. A panel member recommended a beautiful landscape wall.
Sustainability wise, look at shading devices on the south, east and west sides of the building. A more passive solar approach is encouraged. Review your glazing strategy. Devise a strategy with clear glazing.

Applicant’s Response: The applicant team noted the recommendation by planning to change the ramp design was not preferred.

It looks like Strand will need to make some major revisions, as the UDP came down hard on the location of the parking ramp. This is not surprising, as from the report it seems City Staff also thought poorly of that aspect. Given Strand's comments here and at the open house, I'm not sure how they plan to resolve the issue. I do I imagine this will cost them a fair bit of a change, and means that it might be a few months before we see their answer to the problem. My take is that the current layout of the ramp is indeed a big waste of space, and it seemed like more of a quick solution when the proposed access from Harwood was nixed. Still, my sympathy is with them as the building design was pleasing, it provided a good unit mix/layout, and the lot size/location does present difficulties.

[LeftCoaster]

Have to agree with the UDP on all points here.

As they noted the tower and base are strong but the ramp is just a mess. Why in the world does it need to take up 1/3 of the site?

Hopefully Strand hears the undertones of the comments and doesn't mess with the tower but just dives the ramp deeper faster or something along those lines.

[osirisboy]

"Reconsider use of tinted glass to stay with the west end tower expression" what?! That's BS. They don't like tinted glass on anything anywhere. And wouldn't tinted glass help with shading elements and reducing solar gain?

[logan5]

Reconsider the use of tinted glass to stay within the West End tower expression

What the frick are they talking about!? Towers have no expression and they want to stay within those parameters? The UDP has me completely demoralized.

[logan5]

The UDP makes me genuinely angry. They actually want more green towers.

[Vanville]

Howdy folks! It's me again, the whiner who complains about the high costs of housing & obstructed views Just look at what happened the night of the fireworks, they raised the crane right in the way of the barge. Sacrilege I say, they must be reading this forum. My pic:

A few points before I move on. I know there are not too many attractive buildings in the West End. Heck even some of the new ones aren't exactly noteworthy. The only redeeming value is the natural scenery. Which is evidently why a "small" city like Vancouver has become ridiculously expensive. Like Hong Kong or Manhattan, which we are not (just yet). Can our infrastructure even handle that kind of population?
I like some of the older apartments. They have windows that actually open, terrible for the LEED pundits, I know, but I don't like those teeny little widows that barely open in all these new buildings. Plenty of folks in the know don't like a lot of the LEED requirements as buildings need to "breathe" in order to function properly, but the marketing sells a lot of buildings.
I've been to many condos downtown, like the ones in Yaletown that cost a small fortune and yet look across to the apartment across the street/alley so everyone simply keeps the blinds shuttered day & night. A very expensive box, with some ridiculous floor plans to boot. When you have an amazing unfettered view it's depressing to suddenly get boxed in. O.K. had to get that off my chest. For those of you that missed it here's last Saturday's display by Japan:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC-PkGW8FAM
Cute little boat out in the Bay & you can borrow it for $410,000/wk. (my pic):


609 Granville (Canaccord Tower) is about to get some new glass (my pic):

[officedweller]

Pics by me today of The Smithe demolition:

[entheosfog]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Not to take away from your venting, a lot of it is justified, but isn't the developer forced to replaced the low rent units at least on a 1 for 1 basis?

If that is the case I don't see a downside to this redevelopment, aside from the construction, which even the 5 million dollar unit owners have to deal with too.

I can't speak for any other projects, but this one is a one for one replacement of rental units with social housing units. So rental units will be lost in an already extremely tight market.

[Feathered Friend]

For those who are interested, I just found out about this open house scheduled for tonight.

https://twitter.com/HeritageVan/status/892805127916146689





I assume the scope will similar to 288 East Hastings, I'm also curious to see if the Salvation Army Temple will retained in any form. Though I will be in that area tonight, I'm not sure if I'll have time to stop in.

[Vin]

Does health centre mean a place free for all to shoot up? Haven't they realized that this doesn't work too? It's time to criminalize drug use. Lock em up till they quit, it's for their own good before they try killing themselves with Opiod.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Vin

Does health centre mean a place free for all to shoot up? Haven't they realized that this doesn't work too? It's time to criminalize drug use. Lock em up till they quit, it's for their own good before they try killing themselves with Opiod.

Yeah, and let's all pay 75% taxes to build all the jails that would be required to lock up every addict! What are you, 15?

I hope that there is a conservation component to the project, I have always thought that the building should be restored to its former glory.

[logan5]

On the surface it looks as if this project will be leaning more towards shelter rate social housing, which imo would be a bad thing if we are trying to revive the DTES. The ratio for shelter rate should not be higher than 20%. We'll see.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Yeah, and let's all pay 75% taxes to build all the jails that would be required to lock up every addict! What are you, 15?

I hope that there is a conservation component to the project, I have always thought that the building should be restored to its former glory.

I guess you would rather put in an insane amount of money in a bottomless pit called "healthcare", then build subsidized housing and give welfare cheques to the addicts roaming around, then spend some more when they OD? What are you, 12?

Look around that area and see for yourself which heritage building used to house addicts doesn't get back into a state of disrepair after a couple of years.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by logan5

On the surface it looks as if this project will be leaning more towards shelter rate social housing, which imo would be a bad thing if we are trying to revive the DTES. The ratio for shelter rate should not be higher than 20%. We'll see.

Why do you persist in being obtuse on this subject? Revitalization of the DTES is no longer happening; it was halted a number of years ago by Vision Vancouver's official DTES plan. Indeed, under current city policy, some of the gains made prior to Vision's enactments are being reversed. If you open your eyes you will see the poverty district is not being diluted or shrunk but intensified and expanded. And with its recent flip-flop on its own official Chinatown plan, the city has now thrown a wet blanket on further robust Chinatown revitalization too.