Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[Feathered Friend]

My photos

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Speaking of developments at Commercial and Broadway, I don't think I've seen this one posted before.



Lease the Drive's post with info from the pre-application open house
https://www.leasethedrive.com/single-pos...e-10-storey-development-at-East-Broadway

Much like 400 W Georgia, I attended not only the the open house for this project but also the UDP meeting where it was discussed. I walked away from both with not a lot to report. Unfortunately, much like the Cambie Corridor, it seems that the Grandview Woodlands plans will result in a lot of formulaic buildings; boxes on boxes. While the UDP can't criticize city policy, it's my impression that they resent how much projects are forced to conform.

As such, there's not alot to say here. The set backs on all sides are dictated by policy, even though they don't make the most sense. UDP felt that if there has to be a setback, that the side corridors should be opened up. It was felt that the set back above the ally would be better used as patio space, rather than as the amenity space. The outdoor amenity space should be moved to the roof, or more likely (again due to policy) the space on the 6th floor. There are also concerns about the livability of the side facing units, as well as the the treatment of the alleyway. The facade will be brick, and the enclosed patios were supported as the building faces Broadway. In the end, the project passed with recommendations. However, given their comments about aspects that are enforced by the area plan, I'm not sure the Grandview Woodlands policy would have passed if it was up for debate.

[SFUVancouver]

Thank you for the UDP report, Feathered Friend.

[Feathered Friend]

Here's the UDP's take on this little wood frame projectthat is hoping to help enforce the commercial node at Rupert and 22nd. The project has some challenges, including that it's a weird spot that has half it's block zoned as residential. As such, a lot of concern was paid to the neighboring SFHs ,which included the stepping down of the building on it's north and west faces, the retention of a few trees, and the elimination of some townhome units. The efforts were appreciated by the UDP, and the project was supported, albiet with a couple recommendations.

It seemed the primary concerns focused around better treatment of the elevator lobby, relocating the entry way as well as concerns that current treatment of the north facing balconies would result in them being used as storage space. Also mentioned was a desire to see improvements to the facade in the laneway, and improving the outdoor amenity space so it doesn't just feel like a corridor. Overall, I feel this project is a good little bit of density for the area.

[BodomReaper]

I really enjoy your UDP reports, thanks for sharing.

What a shame that the Grandview-Woodlands plan once again forces huge setbacks facing the alleyway in order to avoid triggering a few snobby single family homeowners - resulting in hundreds of apartment residents (in this building alone) being forced to live extremely close to a noisy, polluted arterial. Bad for creating visually interesting retail units as well.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

I really enjoy your UDP reports, thanks for sharing.

What a shame that the Grandview-Woodlands plan once again forces huge setbacks facing the alleyway in order to avoid triggering a few snobby single family homeowners - resulting in hundreds of apartment residents (in this building alone) being forced to live extremely close to a noisy, polluted arterial. Bad for creating visually interesting retail units as well.

Yeah that extra 12 feet is probably the difference between life in paradise and life next to a crowded polluted hellhole.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yeah that extra 12 feet is probably the difference between life in paradise and life next to a crowded polluted hellhole.

You're mocking a buffer of 12 extra feet to separate bedrooms from B-Line tailpipes? Truly spoken as someone who doesn't live in an arterial-facing apartment.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

My photos








Sometimes it really does just take a good coat of paint to improve things.

[officedweller]

The penthouse of the Zonda Nellis Building is for sale:

https://urbanyvr.com/zonda-nellis-south-granville-penthouse

[Feathered Friend]

Once again, it's an understatement to say this area of the city is seeing a lot of business oriented redevelopment. Here's another new proposal that looks like it will be heading to next week's UDP. I believe the project hasn't been posted to the city's website yet, so enjoy this little scoop from the voting booth.

[logan5]

Need a list and maybe a map of all the development happening the Mt. Pleasant industrial area. Too much to keep track of.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Thanks.
That's the 3 Vets site, isn't it?

There's a small building (prefab) going in to the south of it where the Wilf's Transmission is located:

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/08/22/industrialoffice-building-planned-for-yukon-7th-site/


http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2017/08/22/industrialoffice-building-planned-for-yukon-7th-site/

[domusile]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks.
That's the 3 Vets site, isn't it?

Kitty corner to 3 vets. It's the craftsman collision building.

[BodomReaper]

The boom in office construction in both downtown and Mt. Pleasant is making apparent just how under-built (thank you, zoning!) the South-East False Creek residential area will be. At 150,000 square feet of office space, this one building alone provides enough job space for a worker population equivalent to 6 or 7 of the dinky stubs in the residential zone. It's as if official city policy is to force workers into miserable long commutes.

This is especially inexcusable since all the residential development is happening on vacant or ex-industrial land - there were no nimbys around to lead a revolt had the area been zoned to an appropriate level of density.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by domusile

Kitty corner to 3 vets. It's the craftsman collision building.

Got it, thanks!

[GenWhy?]

I forget UDP's are public for projects going before rezoning. I should post more, but enjoy Feathered's postings. Great to see a few posts on projects in the Mount Pleasant Industrial Area for their height allowances are huge, and I am very surprised shadow impacts and balconies were not as big an issue for the Broadway / Commercial building during process but we push things through that seem more contentious but get through easily in the end.

Feathered is missing a UDP from September 13th (ish) that had some very interesting projects up. One was on the intersection of Stephens and 12th Ave Diversion. Replacing an old church and is going in for 15 rental unit townhomes with no car stalls.

People hate they won't be able to park on the street infront of their house... with renters.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I forget UDP's are public for projects going before rezoning. I should post more, but enjoy Feathered's postings....

...Feathered is missing a UDP from September 13th (ish) that had some very interesting projects up. One was on the intersection of Stephens and 12th Ave Diversion. Replacing an old church and is going in for 15 rental unit townhomes with no car stalls.

People hate they won't be able to park on the street infront of their house... with renters.

One could say that UDP meetings are private for rezoning or development applications... at least in the sense that no one from the public shows up. Glad to hear you enjoy my ramblings, and our community is always better when there are more people posting.

I did miss last week's UDP meeting as I forgot it was moved as a result of the by-election. Interestingly enough, the open house for that project was tonight, and I made sure to rush over to it after the 339 E First project (I may have a problem...)











The project originally proposed 24 units, however the proposal was cut back to 15 due to community opposition. Of course, this has pleased none of opposed in the area, and all I heard tonight was the project should be rolled back to three SFHs, at most! To be honest, until I looked at the stats sheet, I truly thought it was only five townhomes. Props to the applicant team for designing a building that blends well into its surroundings.

As the project is under the Rental 100 program, it only needs 7 parking stalls. To fulfill this requirement without putting in a parking garage, the applicant has provided two ride sharing vehicles (under city policy 1 ride share is an equal replacement to 5 parking stalls) as well as a handicap parking stall. Despite hiring an analyst to explain the above, and that data shows less than 50% of trips in the neighbourhood are made by car, some people were still incensed. Another point raised were concerns that not enough outdoor space was provided for children onsite (on patios or in the play area). While there are several parks nearby, it was expressed that these were inappropriate for children to travel to or play at.
Still, the major complaint was that 15 units were far too many for this neighbourhood to absorb, even with its location being less than a 10 minute drive (22 mins by transit) from Robson Square.

Perhaps the night is best summed up with this conversation; I was speaking with a man (with two children at the event) who was against the project as it didn't provide enough parking/was too big. When I asked him how he expected his children to afford living in Vancouver when they grow up, his shocking response was that he simply didn't care. It was his children's problem to figure out and, as a car enthusiast, he was far more concerned that he would have a space to park his car and that most importantly, it wouldn't have tree sap dripping onto it. I honestly can't believe the priorities of these people...

The total amount of people that came through was about 40, with the vast majority expressing the above opinions. While I believe everyone has the right to be concerned about development in their neighbourhood, however these complaints are outlandish. This Rental 100 project will do far more for affordability than two Single Family Homes could ever do. I strongly suggest people use the link below to express support for this extremely modest project, and show the COV that there's support for density west of Arbutus.

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/feedback.htm

[GenWhy?]

The Rental 100 Program was an excellent program. I hope they extend beyond the 20 sites they allowed under it. This one fell within it perfectly as an election piece, no less I think... that, and to get renters (left-leaning voters) into the west side. "Missing middle" rental projects get expedited, which is nice to see above condo projects. It was neat to see the more large scale models at the UDP with this little guy tucked into the room... the panel was a little confused as to why it was there with these exoskeleton towers.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The Rental 100 Program was an excellent program. I hope they extend beyond the 20 sites they allowed under it. This one fell within it perfectly as an election piece, no less I think... that, and to get renters (left-leaning voters) into the west side. "Missing middle" rental projects get expedited, which is nice to see above condo projects. It was neat to see the more large scale models at the UDP with this little guy tucked into the room... the panel was a little confused as to why it was there with these exoskeleton towers.

There are no limits on the number of Rental 100 Projects that can be approved in the city.

You're probably thinking of the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy, which does have an initial 20 project limit. There hasn't been as much interest in that program, where rents have to be below market. Developers can also build condos, but they have to be sold at 20% below market.

[phesto]

^Thanks for the update. This project isn't actually under Rental 100 but the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy.

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're probably thinking of the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy, which does have an initial 20 project limit. There hasn't been as much interest in that program, where rents have to be below market. Developers can also build condos, but they have to be sold at 20% below market.

I believe it's actually the opposite. Rents are capped under Rental 100 (there is a max rental rate on East side and West side) whereas there is no equivalent cap under the AHCIRP.