Chinatown Updates Discussion

[logan5]

Originally Posted by csbvan

It's half a nice building. Unfortunate that it couldn't be more cohesive.

I'll say third of a building. Don't remember what the render looks like, but I presume there will be another brick facade (in a different colour) on the Hastings side, which simulates what is traditionally seen along East Hastings.

That scheme works well in the new Chinatown developments, and I think it will work well here.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'll say third of a building. Don't remember what the render looks like, but I presume there will be another brick facade (in a different colour) on the Hastings side, which simulates what is traditionally seen along East Hastings.

That scheme works well in the new Chinatown developments, and I think it will work well here.

It will have a vertical component - the model suggests red brick (but brick 'as built' is sometimes changed). It's possible the City wanted the lighter upper floors - it's equally likely it was the architect's preference for breaking up what would otherwise be a large bulk. They seem to be referencing the height and colour of the heritage building to the south, which is unlikely to get redeveloped.

my photo of the DP model on the Changing City blog https://changingcitybook.com/2016/01...stings-street/

[Jake Potter]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It will have a vertical component - the model suggests red brick (but brick 'as built' is sometimes changed). It's possible the City wanted the lighter upper floors - it's equally likely it was the architect's preference for breaking up what would otherwise be a large bulk. They seem to be referencing the height and colour of the heritage building to the south, which is unlikely to get redeveloped.

my photo of the DP model on the Changing City blog https://changingcitybook.com/2016/01...stings-street/

I like the design it's simple and sweet for the area it's proposed for.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

The city has to stop this bullshit of making the top half or upper floors a light spandrel mess in the failed efforts of trying to minimize the impact of the building, it doesn't! It makes it worse

It may also be a combination of factors -
- LEED requiring smaller windows (and the architects wanting "lighter" appearance with just concrete banding)
- brick being more expensive to take the full height of the building
- everyone hating stucco

The smaller windows required by LEED, would have, in past years, been designed as "punched out" windows.
In this case, that would have made the building "top heavy" in appearance.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

(In case anyone is wondering, the tall model in the background is a larger illustration of 105 Keefer's balconies)







Once again, I was gone by the time this project came up. However, I was given the impression that there was a feeling that this version was much improved.

https://twitter.com/chinatown_today/...91131324432385
Chinatown today is reporting that the project was approved, though it doesn't specify if there were recommendations or not. Unfortunately, the tweet forgets to mention that it's the re-submission which has been approved, which appears to be generating confusion.

[officedweller]

Did a wooden screen fall off the top floor of the model?
I'm not really keen on asymmetrical facades - looks like the architects couldn't be bothered.

[Feathered Friend]

Based on the rendering on page 27, I would assume that to be the case. It also looks like the bamboo in the alley facing amenity space is an additional error, as the renderings don't depict it, plus the UDP really came down hard on that feature in version 1. Personally I feel that the design is really bland, but unfortunately it seems that is all that can get passed in Chinatown now.

[osirisboy]

Revised version looks much better

[GenWhy?]

Yeah thank goodness. It was a relief.

[Feathered Friend]

I went down to the Development Permit Board meeting regarding 105 Keefer tonight. There were over 100 speakers registered, though it seemed a good number of them weren't showing up.

Most of the opposition were set up in the lobby of the townhall room, live tweeting away. While some of the opposition came in with legitimate concerns about the project, or touching personal stories of historic racism, more than a few were there to deliberately waste time, with one individual spending the entirety of his 5 minutes reciting a news article about Elm trees on 6th and Commercial. Very few individuals addressed the actual development application's merits under the current zoning. There actually seemed to be a fair balance of support and opposition present. However, looking at some of the live tweets, those opposed seem to be painting a deliberately false narrative, especially with the use of intentionally misleading quotes.

As I left, a man told me I should leave the neighbourhood and that I didn't belong there. After a short back and forth discussing why it's wrong to fence one group of people into one neighbourhood, I informed him that I too come from a group that has been victimized by horrible national policies. I said that I felt it was unfortunate that those against the height of the project ruined the chance of providing social housing, as I would like to anyone be able to live in Vancouver. His response was a simple "fuck you" before walking away. It's a shame that a group that claims Beedie has bullied them are the ones unable to tolerate any opposition to their view point.

Ultimately, I feel the passage is pretty much guaranteed. Though the advisory board left early, they were emphatic in their belief that this project should go ahead and the tone of the board led me to believe the wouldn't make the same choice as council.

[osirisboy]

Always great to get your take on these meetings! You must be a very patient person to try and have conversations with some of these people!

[jlousa]

Amazing to see council try and buy a parcel of land from a developer that was following the exact plan approved by the same council... Glad they refused to sell but still a shame that the original plan will never see the light of day given it was a superior proposal for the community.

Dear Mayor and Council,
At the request of City Council, following the 105 Keefer Street rezoning Public Hearing on May 23 and 25, 2017, the City and BC Housing pursued discussions with the Beedie Development Group (Beedie) for a potential land swap, as well as outright purchase by the City and partners, for the site at 105 Keefer Street. Beedie was an active and willing participant in this discussion.
Unfortunately, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on any option. Therefore, the Development Permit Board should now consider and act on the revised (Development Permit) proposal submitted by Beedie.
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Gil Kelley at [email protected] or Anita Molaro at [email protected].
Regards,
Gil Kelley, FAICP
General Manager, Planning, Urban Design & Sustainability

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

I went down to the Development Permit Board meeting regarding 105 Keefer tonight. There were over 100 speakers registered, though it seemed a good number of them weren't showing up.

Most of the opposition were set up in the lobby of the townhall room, live tweeting away. While some of the opposition came in with legitimate concerns about the project, or touching personal stories of historic racism, more than a few were there to deliberately waste time, with one individual spending the entirety of his 5 minutes reciting a news article about Elm trees on 6th and Commercial. Very few individuals addressed the actual development application's merits under the current zoning. There actually seemed to be a fair balance of support and opposition present. However, looking at some of the live tweets, those opposed seem to be painting a deliberately false narrative, especially with the use of intentionally misleading quotes.

As I left, a man told me I should leave the neighbourhood and that I didn't belong there. After a short back and forth discussing why it's wrong to fence one group of people into one neighbourhood, I informed him that I too come from a group that has been victimized by horrible national policies. I said that I felt it was unfortunate that those against the height of the project ruined the chance of providing social housing, as I would like to anyone be able to live in Vancouver. His response was a simple "fuck you" before walking away. It's a shame that a group that claims Beedie has bullied them are the ones unable to tolerate any opposition to their view point.

Ultimately, I feel the passage is pretty much guaranteed. Though the advisory board left early, they were emphatic in their belief that this project should go ahead and the tone of the board led me to believe the wouldn't make the same choice as council.

Love it.

The irony of the leftist, "inclusive" activists never ceases to amaze me.

All for equality, but completely even unwilling to have a conversation.

[Vin]

I would've taken photos of those racists/ethnic chauvinist and post them here.

Well, that's great! Now all taxpayers will have to subsidize this lousy City to purchase that piece of dump. The City would perhaps pay way above the market value of the lot to compensate Beedie?

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

I went down to the Development Permit Board meeting regarding 105 Keefer tonight. There were over 100 speakers registered, though it seemed a good number of them weren't showing up.

Most of the opposition were set up in the lobby of the townhall room, live tweeting away. While some of the opposition came in with legitimate concerns about the project, or touching personal stories of historic racism, more than a few were there to deliberately waste time, with one individual spending the entirety of his 5 minutes reciting a news article about Elm trees on 6th and Commercial. Very few individuals addressed the actual development application's merits under the current zoning. There actually seemed to be a fair balance of support and opposition present. However, looking at some of the live tweets, those opposed seem to be painting a deliberately false narrative, especially with the use of intentionally misleading quotes.

As I left, a man told me I should leave the neighbourhood and that I didn't belong there. After a short back and forth discussing why it's wrong to fence one group of people into one neighbourhood, I informed him that I too come from a group that has been victimized by horrible national policies. I said that I felt it was unfortunate that those against the height of the project ruined the chance of providing social housing, as I would like to anyone be able to live in Vancouver. His response was a simple "fuck you" before walking away. It's a shame that a group that claims Beedie has bullied them are the ones unable to tolerate any opposition to their view point.

Ultimately, I feel the passage is pretty much guaranteed. Though the advisory board left early, they were emphatic in their belief that this project should go ahead and the tone of the board led me to believe the wouldn't make the same choice as council.

When people feel they are the victim, they feel like any behaviour they exhibit no matter how bad is justified because ultimately it's someone else's fault. This guy at some level feels like he's going to war with the 'system'. I salute you for your empathy and being reasonable with this person and his response is unfortunate.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

When people feel they are the victim, they feel like any behaviour they exhibit no matter how bad is justified because ultimately it's someone else's fault. This guy at some level feels like he's going to war with the 'system'. I salute you for your empathy and being reasonable with this person and his response is unfortunate.

Germans felt they were "victims" after the First World War, blaming outsiders like the Jews for creating a system to plunder their wealth and influence politicians who determined their livelihood. And hey presto, The Third Reich was born!

Not saying that those trying to object to this development are like the Third Reich folks, but people who feel victimized, even though they are not (maybe their ancestors?), would start harbouring extreme ideologies. When they have found others who share the same thoughts, they would start lashing out at others who oppose them. In this case, the man who uttered FU had no interest in listening to logic: he was simply lashing out at those different from him by using this event as an excuse, emboldened by others who think like him and were also present.

[Jimbo604]

Decision delayed on Chinatown condo development
Oct 31st 2017 - Vancouver Courier

"...A development company whose condo proposal for Chinatown was rejected by city council in June will have to wait until next week to see if it gets the green light to proceed with a revised nine-storey version of its project. ..."

Board Motion to defer discussion and decision to nov 6th 5pm

[Feathered Friend]

Well, I was wrong... Apparently three of the four members of the DPB (Gill Kelley, Andrea Law and Jerry Dobrovolny) were willing to ignore their staff, the advisory board, and even the City's legal department and voted against 105 Keefer.

Truly a disturbing precedent for the City, when the rules are bent to accommodate those who behaved terribly and screamed the loudest. I'm not only worried for the future of Chinatown, which I think now is assuredly gloomy, but I am also concerned this behavior, and acquiescence to it, will spread to other neighbourhoods throughout the city.

Council made a mistake, but it was somewhat understandable as they did it for political reasons (being the political beast they are). I'm not sure what the two members of the DPB were thinking tonight. Score one for the 'looking good while throwing your staff under the bus' I guess. Will Beedie move ahead with yet another redesign as suggested by the board, or will they take legal action against a decision that has flimsy logic at best, only time will tell.

One closing thought, it is ridiculous that the West End is progressive enough to accept more height/density in order to create social housing and community benefits, while this neighbourhood (with its claim of social activism) rejects social housing and community space because of 3-5 extra stories. Imagine if all the effort spent fighting this one project was applied to lobbying higher levels of government to increase funding for low/moderate income housing?

Maybe I'm a cynic, but it feels like a good portion of this "movement" is made up of people using this as a political stepping stone or, alternatively, just a way to feel like they are part of a larger cause. Meanwhile, all the people in the area that are struggling to get by are being mislead. Then again, maybe time will prove me wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

[GenWhy?]

Really disappointed in Gill, but the whole upper chambers of staff are connected to the politics of council and the City in general in many ways. I still like to believe Staff are independent. But yes true Feathered Friend, they really have to go to the Province and the Feds for social and senior housing. The City can't just zone and decree social housing. Not the body of government to fund such endevours as we've seen.

[osirisboy]

i feel like if I was the developer I would be taking this to court at this point. This is reidiculous. And you're right this just sets a horrible precedence

And how can they reject this when they have approved a half dozen projects up the block?