General Vancouver Updates

[csbvan]

Sometimes buildings should be saved simply because they are an excellent example of a particular type of architecture from a particular era...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i like how it is listed as an "A" category for heritage value but nahh, we don't need it since its pointless. what is the point of a protected status if at any time anyone can ignore that? but whatever; when we forget history we are doomed to repeat it. so

[Marshal]

I have many different, sometimes contradictory, views about the policy, legal and economic roles of heritage. I also have a decent history of projects and work with municipalities involving heritage. Given that, I probably agree and disagree with a lot of what the last group of posts say.

But today, its grumpy Marshal: seeing as heritage is impossible to define in a rational manner (it comes down to subjective notions written into policy) I think it should not be something cities adopt and force on people. If heritage lovers care so much, let them get together and buy the properties concerned. Otherwise, stop trying to tell others what to do with their largest lifetime investment. (Developers are a bit different, but if you don't like something put your money/time/effort into changing it yourself, and again, stop trying to push your values on others.)

[GeeCee]

'Heritage' is all too often nothing but shined up NIMBYism.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You don't seem to be understanding the concept of heritage. Every fact you just threw out about the building shows how well it illustrates Vancouver's history and development.

A) It was a reply to you describing the RCMP barracks as such:

Originally Posted by whatnext

... it tells many stories. The relatively orderly settling of Western Canada because of our national police force; Vancouver architecture symbolizing its status the farthest western reach and newest city of the greatest empire the world had ever seen.

To which I say you don't seem to be understanding the concept of "settling Canada" (built just before the Great War, hardly frontier-era), "because of our national police" (they spontaneously moved in eight years later), or "Vancouver architecture" (we sure as hell didn't invent Tudor-style buildings).

B) By that logic, we can't tear down anything - every building's got a history behind it. That run-down building over there? Used to be part of Japantown. That school that's half 50s-era pre-fab? Two premiers went to school there. That worn-down hangar? Used to house Hurricanes in WWII.

The city can't grow AND stay the same; heritage is basically knowing what to throw away and knowing what to keep. It's not like the barracks got a visit from the Queen.

Originally Posted by whatnext

And the Empire that has the most acreage wins, plus it was the only one that was truly global in scale.

No, you said "greatest empire." Greatest is a relative term: the Roman empire left the biggest cultural legacy, the Japanese empire (or the Ottoman) lasted the longest, the various Caliphates had the most scientific impact, Alexander's empire was the most famous.

As for global in scale? Pfft, tell that to the French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Russians or Mongols.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Sometimes buildings should be saved simply because they are an excellent example of a particular type of architecture from a particular era...

Good point; we are running out of Tudors. All the reason to build more:



Not the same, but it helps.

[Vin]

Someone should organize a protest to demo the Fairview building.....

[officedweller]

Heather & 17th (with retail!?)
from GBL twitter:


https://twitter.com/GBLArchitects

************

8888 Osler
from GBL twitter:


https://twitter.com/GBLArchitects

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Heather & 17th (with retail!?)
from GBL twitter:


https://twitter.com/GBLArchitects...

Yet another site where affordable apartments would be demolished for condos for the wealthy. Check out their website: "Shaughnessy Neighbourhood" LOL.
http://liveheather17.com/

[SpongeG]

that area of heather has retail, adding more makes sense or is it replacing the building with the retail

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

that area of heather has retail, adding more makes sense or is it replacing the building with the retail

It's currently postwar rental over retail.

BTW, here's a listing for one of the new units at $1.899 million. Yay, let's here it for building our way to affordability!

https://www.estateblock.com/vancouver-re...-ave-vancouver-bc-v0v-0v0-mls-r2218551-1

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Good point; we are running out of Tudors. All the reason to build more:



Not the same, but it helps.

looks like some of the places they built in Richmond along Alderbridge. they have a Tudor look. 3 floors, townhouses, decent looking.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yet another site where affordable apartments would be demolished for condos for the wealthy. Check out their website: "Shaughnessy Neighbourhood" LOL.
http://liveheather17.com/

Given the job density of VGH nearby, this site should have been a very high-density tower adding massively more units than currently exist on the site. You can thank our archaic zoning code for the net affordability loss.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Given the job density of VGH nearby, this site should have been a very high-density tower adding massively more units than currently exist on the site. You can thank our archaic zoning code for the net affordability loss.

Unless some of those "massively more units" were rental units at the same price as what is being demolished, it really wouldn't do anything for the net affordability loss.

[s211]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

that area of heather has retail, adding more makes sense or is it replacing the building with the retail

Very very very cheap retail, and no need for its replacement. I ride past there often, and there's totally zero need for retail on that site. Not every site on the planet need be mixed use. Even ULI, the paragon of mixed-use, will acknowledge that not every site need have mixed uses.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Unless some of those "massively more units" were rental units at the same price as what is being demolished, it really wouldn't do anything for the net affordability loss.

Rent increase are driven by a shortage of units. If we want to stop citywide rents from constantly increasing, we need massively more units.

Obviously it would be far more desirable to upzone single family neighborhoods first (also plenty of those adjacent to VGH and the Children's/Women's hospital), thus maximizing the amount of time that the cheap walk-ups exist for and provide cheap accommodation, but ultimately the market level of density in a location like this would still be far higher than can be accommodated in the old 3 storey walk-ups.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Rent increase are driven by a shortage of units. If we want to stop citywide rents from constantly increasing, we need massively more units.

Obviously it would be far more desirable to upzone single family neighborhoods first (also plenty of those adjacent to VGH and the Children's/Women's hospital), thus maximizing the amount of time that the cheap walk-ups exist for and provide cheap accommodation, but ultimately the market level of density in a location like this would still be far higher than can be accommodated in the old 3 storey walk-ups.

Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. You cannot build a rental building with rates anywhere near what you see in an older building. Costs of buying a building, demo-ing it, and then building a new structure ensure that the cost for unit will be high.

Therefore, we too often see a net loss of lower-end units replaced with higher end rental units. It doesn't matter how many are built, those lower end prices can never be charged in the new building or it won't be able to break even given the costs of development.

The key is to build more rental units, but to do so without wiping out, forever, low-end rental units. We need more rental units and we need to maintain existing, cheaper rental units.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. You cannot build a rental building with rates anywhere near what you see in an older building. Costs of buying a building, demo-ing it, and then building a new structure ensure that the cost for unit will be high.

Therefore, we too often see a net loss of lower-end units replaced with higher end rental units. It doesn't matter how many are built, those lower end prices can never be charged in the new building or it won't be able to break even given the costs of development.

The key is to build more rental units, but to do so without wiping out, forever, low-end rental units. We need more rental units and we need to maintain existing, cheaper rental units.

Indeed.

I'm surprised demolition of the older building was allowed by mayor and council, isn't there a policy on that? Perhaps it had been stratified at some point?

[GenWhy?]

Policy for demo-ing a rental building is listed under the Rate of Change policy.
http://guidelines.vancouver.ca/R021.pdf

Also not sure how mayor and council have a finger in small apartments being torn down to build another building under existing guidelines and following Tenant Relocation policy. They definitely helped form the best relocation and rental replacement policy in the country, however.

[GenWhy?]

It is also a C-2 zoned site. Major difference in the way Rate of Change works and demos. We're currently in the process to tear down a building with about just under 20 1 bed rentals built in the 50's, 3-storeys and replacing it with - along the adjacent properties that are vacant, into luxery condos for empty nesters... it's a C-2 site and we offer ample move-out times, heads up, and compensation packages with moving support and help them move into rentals near by. All within policy and guidelines.