Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 765

SpongeG · #**15281** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 1:49 AM**

Quote:

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.

i didn't catch it all but it was on the ctv news at noon aug 2, something about giving the drug addicts free drugs so they don't get the tainted fentanyl stuff on the streets. This way they the healthcare people and the addicts know they are getting pure safe drugs.

logan5 · #**15282** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 1:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

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.

Slowly over the past few years there have been businesses opening along East Hastings (and in Chinatown). Businesses have also been opening on Powell Street. I won't be as abrasive as you, but maybe you should have a closer look at what's happening in the DTES, despite Vision's supposed crippling plan.

Keep in mind that developers have far more freedom to develop market housing east of Heatley and not much happening there either.

logan5 · #**15283** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 2:14 AM**

And I will point out that the Woodwards project has a large social housing component and still managed to transform that section of east Hastings. So it's there is evidence that the plan (Oppenheimer District) is at least socially viable, and probably crucial in having a successful neighbourhood and not another Coal Harbour. Whether the plan is economically viable is still up for debate.

Prometheus · #**15284** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

And I will point out that the Woodwards project has a large social housing component and still managed to transform that section of east Hastings. So it's there is evidence that the plan (Oppenheimer District) is at least socially viable, and probably crucial in having a successful neighbourhood and not another Coal Harbour. Whether the plan is economically viable is still up for debate.

A predominantly middle class-oriented market project with a social housing component (like Woodwards) is one thing, while a predominantly welfare-oriented social housing project with a market housing component is entirely another. The former--which can spur the revitalization of a formerly decayed block--is precisely what can no longer be built in the DTES under Vision's plan. The Woodwards project is from an era that Vision has put an end to.

An empty lot like 58 West Hastings, for instance, would have been perfect for a major, transformative project similar to Woodwards that could have acted as a catalyst for further revitalization of West Hastings. But the mayor, in accordance with his support for the poverty industry, has pledged to make 58 West Hastings not just 100% social housing but 100% welfare-rate housing. Revitalization is no longer spreading east; ghettoization is now spreading west.

Feathered Friend · #**15285** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 6:49 AM**

I managed to make it down tonight. However, because of how late it was when I got back in tonight, I won't have time to look through photos and get a blurb written up about what I've learned until later tomorrow.

To make sure this stays on topic about the building rather than social/drug policies, I will say that:

All of the units are set at below market rate, but only 33% of the units are at shelter rates.
There are two concepts of the project. A) retains the Hastings Street Facade and has a tribute to the old facade on Gore Ave; B) Is a totally new building

Feathered Friend · #**15286** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 4:49 AM**

So, as mentioned, I managed to make it down this event. Two designs were presented, one with retention of the Hastings facade, and another with just a brand new building. As you can tell from reading the boards, I feel the team has a clear favorite, and I'm inclined to agree that Concept B is the better option. That said, it's only my opinion, and others should feel free to disagree.

I did come into the open house with an open mind, having read the Heritage Society article on the Sally Ann Temple. However, seeing the building in person, learning more about the history of it, and seeing how the site could be better used swung my opinion to B. My view is that B provides a better floor layout, better connections to the streetscape, and provides privacy to those using the group rooms. I also really like the corner entrance at Gore and Hastings and, frankly, the exterior as a whole.

To me, claiming that the building has any heritage worth for it's Moderne design, built in 1949 (20 years after that design window), would be the equivalent of arguing that the new twin towers at 1488 Alberni should immediately be granted heritage status as one of the few examples of Art Deco in the city. Funds on retaining the facade/building would clearly be better used else where. That's not to mention the environmental contamination of the existing structure that still retains it's lead based paint, only covered at ground level by graffiti cover ups.

Both versions support a rooftop amenity space for residents of the building, as well as providing units at below market rates. Though only 33 will be at shelter rate which, if 58 W Hastings is any indication, will draw complaints from the usual suspects. Also, both projects are capped not by height but rather by having achieved maximum density under the area plan. Apparently a request by the team for a greater density was a non-starter with the city. Given the housing crisis, and that more social units or even some market units (to fund more social projects) could have been added, it seems like a waste that city policy is so restrictive.

If anyone wants to weigh in on which version they feel is best, or if they would want to see some sort of amalgamation between the designs, the contact on the info form is:
Peg MacDonald [email protected]

The form said the deadline for comments to be received is 4 August. How firm of a deadline that is is anyone's guess.

trofirhen · #**15287** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 4:56 AM**

I like concept B better. It has more style, and is bigger than concept A. A is ok, but has a "cheap" look to the upper building, imo. B isn't perfect, but it's more aesthetically pleasant.

LeftCoaster · #**15288** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 5:18 PM**

The tower form of B is clearly much more well thought out, and to me a pretty obvious attempt to guide comments to that tower as I would assume they don't want to have to deal with the headache of preserving the facade. If an option of tower B with podium A was presented that would be my clear preference, and I will likely send in an email to that effect.

Great to see the city denying density... they just don't get it.

osirisboy · #**15289** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 6:07 PM**

I'd go with a because I'd like to see them retain the heritage facade. Yeah the density is once again way too low. Why is the city so scared to allow more density. Although, I guess this is still part of historic area, and are limited by height?

logan5 · #**15290** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Apparently a request by the team for a greater density was a non-starter with the city.

I thought that the Oppenheimer plan allowed for consideration of more density for projects that were 100% social housing?

In any event, I would call it a net gain for the neighbourhood. There will be 50 units for working class people who will contribute to the local economy and bring more businesses to the area.

officedweller · #**15291** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The tower form of B is clearly much more well thought out, and to me a pretty obvious attempt to guide comments to that tower as I would assume they don't want to have to deal with the headache of preserving the facade. If an option of tower B with podium A was presented that would be my clear preference, and I will likely send in an email to that effect.

Agreed.

They are clearly favouring Option B.

Option A with a setback above the heritage façade would look much better.

retro_orange · #**15292** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 7:54 PM**

IMO the heritage facade must be retained, going out of their way to make tower B more attractive and well laid out is a poor standard to design by.

I say option A simply needs to be redesigned. Vancouver was quite behind on the design front and the first Modern architecture that came about and popularized in Europe often took 20 years to get established in Vancouver, A very far flung city before cheap air travel was a thing. Also the Streamlined Moderne era really went from about the early 30's until people like Raymond Loewy started introducing Forward Modernism after about 1953. 1949 is still a legitimate Streamlined Moderne building.

I think this late Streamlined Moderne era building is much nicer than a lot of the typical Edwardian flat brick facades that are often retained these days. We should be taking down SFH, not heritage buildings.

Once it's gone, it's gone.

officedweller · #**15293** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 8:12 PM**

Missed this earlier - from July 24th.
The pavers remind me of the marble paving stones at Wall Centre's driveway.

New look pier tip plaza opens at Canada Place

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-place-north-point-plaza-vancouver

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-place-north-point-plaza-vancouver

officedweller · #**15294** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 8:18 PM**

Pic of the big — recycling bins at Vancouver City Cnetre Station:

http://www.straight.com/news/937671/hall...introduce-street-recycling-downtown-core

trofirhen · #**15295** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 8:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

The tower form of B is clearly much more well thought out ....... If an option of tower B with podium A was presented that would be my clear preference, and I will likely send in an email to that effect.

Great to see the city denying density... they just don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Agreed.

They are clearly favouring Option B.

Option A with a setback above the heritage façade would look much better.

Precisely. May I Third this?

Tetsuo · #**15296** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 9:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Pic of the big — recycling bins at Vancouver City Cnetre Station:

http://www.straight.com/news/937671/hall...introduce-street-recycling-downtown-core

Updated pic

Sauce

osirisboy · #**15297** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 10:51 PM**

What the hell is that?

Changing City · #**15298** Posted **Aug 5, 2017, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

What the hell is that?

It looks like Vin was right.

This is what happens when the mall is full - it overflows.

Spork · #**15299** Posted **Aug 5, 2017, 4:28 AM**

Why in the world is there no compost bin? We're almost there...

Vin · #**15300** Posted **Aug 5, 2017, 7:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

It looks like Vin was right.

This is what happens when the mall is full - it overflows.

It's a result of way too much tolerance and backward policies of this City. Now we see the expansion of East Hasting's daily market. I guess Nordstrom needs some healthy competition.