HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1581  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 1:34 AM
BodomReaper BodomReaper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 987
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike View Post
I have an income property at Orizon On Third, and this is right on that same block. I'm typically a fan of building heights, but this one is 2-3 floors too tall for that area, even with that upslope. A building of that scale would suit the 100 block of east third (i.e. Anchor), but the folks around this one are going to be quite vocal of this one, guaranteed.

As with the East 2nd property that's in the works for a huge rental building, I am (and others are) stressing to the city that there's already a parking issue in that neighbourhood, so they better plan for enough stalls within the buildings for all of the new residents.
Landlord just so happens to believe that project providing direct competition contains too many units
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1582  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 6:23 AM
LowerLonsdaleMike LowerLonsdaleMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by BodomReaper View Post
Landlord just so happens to believe that project providing direct competition contains too many units
Good try, but nope. I don't care how many units are in the darn building. Lower Lonsdale needs a lot more condos and rental properties and competition is not a concern of mine. With every new development, the neighbourhood becomes more desirable and more sought-after. If they allow a 7-8 floor building right there, they have to rewrite the whole OCP for the East 3rd corridor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1583  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 7:49 AM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Why do you care if they have to re-write the OCP? (Not that they will because it's four storeys with townhouses at the bottom of the HUGE SLOPE ).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1584  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 5:34 PM
LowerLonsdaleMike LowerLonsdaleMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
Why do you care if they have to re-write the OCP? (Not that they will because it's four storeys with townhouses at the bottom of the HUGE SLOPE ).
You must be a very tiny person if you continue to call that a "huge hill". I've seen a little more information than you probably have with additional architectural drawings and regardless of whether or not there's a townhouse on the base or not, that is still a 7 storey building plus the additional rooftop amenity, as well as the additional 5 feet of elevation off the road.

I'm just stating the facts based on how the city operates, setting aside any person feelings I may or may not have of the development. You can continue to call it a townhouse perched on a mountainside with 4 floors above it, but facts are facts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1585  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 6:15 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
The thing is you aren't setting aside personal feelings, you clearly have personal interest in seeing the very reasonably sized development being scrapped.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1586  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 6:22 PM
LowerLonsdaleMike LowerLonsdaleMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
The thing is you aren't setting aside personal feelings, you clearly have personal interest in seeing the very reasonably sized development being scrapped.
That's your assumption. I didnt even say I want this building scrapped. You're just plopping words into my mouth. I'd love to see that whole north side of the 200 block redeveloped, but I want it to fit into the community and as RustyGull had said, enhance the neighbourhood. Instead of making these assumptions about my "personal feelings" how about you engage in a productive conversation about how this development can be enhanced to fit into our growing neighbourhood and benefit everyone around it.

Here's a prime example: Creston on Bewicke engaged in thorough conversations with the immediate neighbourhood, took everyone's thoughts and concerns into consideration and submitted a really nice building that will enhance the Marine Drive corridor. We dont always have to except what a developer proposes. The great thing that helps enhance the developments in our neighbourhoods is the dialogue from all angles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1587  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 6:35 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike View Post
That's your assumption. I didnt even say I want this building scrapped. You're just plopping words into my mouth.
So you said this just out of your compassion for the NIMBY community?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike View Post
I'm typically a fan of building heights, but this one is 2-3 floors too tall for that area, even with that upslope.
I'm fine with the building and have been engaged in a constructive conversation, thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1588  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 6:55 PM
LowerLonsdaleMike LowerLonsdaleMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 182
[QUOTE=Pinion;7978899]So you said this just out of your compassion for the NIMBY community?

On and on again with your false assumptions. Wow, you're quite pleasant. But then again, you're the one that said that this is on a "GIANT", "STEEP", "HUGE" hill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1589  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 8:32 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,594
Typically building heights are measured from the high point of the property, so in this case it would be the lane, and the city is calling this a 6 storey building. That being said, it seems as if this would need an OCP amendment as well as a rezoning permit. I haven't seen any other details regarding density, but even with a density bonus this development would be limited to 2.6 FSR under the current OCP. Personally I would be happy to see more density in this location and I don't feel that the building would be too out of place for the neighbourhood, although the building as proposed does not appear to be very attractive (at least based on that rendering). Thats certainly a bigger deal to mean that the height.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1590  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 10:26 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike View Post
On and on again with your false assumptions. Wow, you're quite pleasant. But then again, you're the one that said that this is on a "GIANT", "STEEP", "HUGE" hill.
Stop trying to make this about me and answer the question. Or preferably just stop digging yourself deeper, thanks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1591  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2017, 8:31 PM
LowerLonsdaleMike LowerLonsdaleMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrenegade View Post
Typically building heights are measured from the high point of the property, so in this case it would be the lane, and the city is calling this a 6 storey building. That being said, it seems as if this would need an OCP amendment as well as a rezoning permit. I haven't seen any other details regarding density, but even with a density bonus this development would be limited to 2.6 FSR under the current OCP. Personally I would be happy to see more density in this location and I don't feel that the building would be too out of place for the neighbourhood, although the building as proposed does not appear to be very attractive (at least based on that rendering). Thats certainly a bigger deal to mean that the height.
Well said Wrenegade. My main point prior to folks implying I was complaining of a lost view or a NIMBY mentality, was that this doesn't fit into the current zoning. If they are attempting to rezone and amend the OCP, then they'll have to go through that process. And definitely will have to take the feedback of neighbours. My biggest concern with any development is that a developer comes into a neighbourhood and tries to maximize their profits by building something that only serves themselves. Quite honestly, it's not the nicest of buildings and if they were to tweak it a bit, perhaps they'd win over more folks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1592  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2017, 10:18 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,722
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1593  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 2:58 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Harbourside development still inexplicably spinning its wheels



Quote:
More than three years after winning approval to build a massive commercial/residential project south of the Northshore Auto Mall, Concert Properties has yet to apply for a building permit or a development permit for the Harbourside project.

The development was debated again Monday as City of North Vancouver council voted 4-2 to grant Concert’s request to delay the construction of a seniors’ rental-assisted living facility, push some of the commercial space originally earmarked for the foot of Fell Avenue farther west, and fast-track the construction of market rental housing.

The changes chagrinned Coun. Pam Bookham, who excoriated Concert for taking so long to begin building the 800 strata and rental units and 300,000 square feet of commercial space on the strip of waterfront property between Bewicke Avenue and Bodwell High School.

“The vibrancy which basically sold this project . . . is now in danger of never being realized,” she said, joining Coun. Rod Clark in voting against the change.

“I don’t understand why we would be supportive of Concert when they seem unable or unwilling to move forward and deliver the vision that they sold to us, and sold to the community,” she said.

It was a vision Bookham never bought into, suggesting the project “flies in the face” of planning principles that target high-density projects for areas with quick access to transit.

The project includes a 24-seat community shuttle bus, which would offer complimentary service from Harbourside to Lonsdale Quay. The shuttle would cease operations once TransLink increases service in the area.

Given the steady stream of traffic that backs up along West First Street when Seaspan workers end their shift, “it’s about bloody time” there was rental housing in the area, stated Coun. Craig Keating.

“It’d be great if in fact we could have a bit more housing capacity down there so we’re not overloading the roads with people who just want to come here to work at good industrial jobs,” he said.

The project should “help to address historically low rental vacancy rates,” according to a city staff report. The city’s vacancy rate was pegged at 0.3 by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp.’s 2016 survey.

However, there is also a “strong need” for rental housing for seniors, the staff report noted.

Concert’s bid to reconfigure the commercial space “has the potential to weaken” the city’s goal of creating a vibrant commercial junction at the foot of Fell Avenue, according to a city staff report.

That was a concern for Clark, who questioned if the city had created a “gentrified community” with a large portion of dental, medical, and legal offices.

“Are we at risk of diluting the commercial node at the bottom of Fell?” Clark asked.

Dilution is a concern, said city planner Michael Epp. However, there will still be a plaza surrounded by commercial space.

“I do think that the node does still function,” Epp told Clark.

Clark also expressed frustration with Concert Properties’ sluggish pace.

“I want to see action and I want to see it soon,” he said.

The project’s initial plan prioritized the neighbourhood’s commercial centre and employment-generating office space, with the largest residential portion set to be delivered later in the process. That process was negotiated to provide the city “with a greater degree of comfort that the amenities would be delivered, particularly in the event that market conditions change,” noted a city staff report.

Building regulations related to flood risk have made the commercial component more challenging, according to Epp.

“They just haven’t been able to achieve the amount of commercial development at the ground floor that they previously anticipated,” Epp said.

However, the changes are “relatively minor,” as the majority of the commercial development is still slated to be built in the first two phases of the four-phase project, noted a staff report.

The change is intended to be a “precursor to some serious action on the site,” Epp said.

Mayor Darrell Mussatto concurred, referring to a meeting with Concert Properties.

“They want to get moving on this, and they see this as critical,” he said.

Mussatto also supported building housing first. “I think it’s the right thing to be doing.”

Concert Properties initially pitched a major project for the waterfront in June of 2009.

The site is currently vacant, despite initial plans to create an outdoor plaza at 925 Harbourside Dr. ringed by cooks, chefs, and craft beer brewers. Plans for Hawker’s Wharf were discarded despite entrepreneur Chris Jerome and Concert Properties reaching an agreement with the City of North Vancouver in 2015.

The Harbourside project would likely take 10 years to complete, according to city staff.

Coun. Don Bell did not attend the meeting.
http://www.nsnews.com/news/harbourside-seniors-rental-housing-delayed-1.23087584

Love that Bookham and Clark vote against everything and are now complaining that it's not being done fast enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1594  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 7:54 PM
LowerLonsdaleMike LowerLonsdaleMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 182
The Gardenworks site (705 W 3rd St) is next up for redevelopement (anyone have renderings of this one from Lotus Pacific?):

Rezoning of existing commercial site, zoned CS-1, to a mixed-use development comprised of 5 storeys with commercial on the ground floor and residential above.

This is a nice spot for a landmark building at that intersection. Hopefully the developer has good taste.

Along with the current construction of "Marine&Fell", "The Five Points", and the soon to be Spring 2018 demo at the "Creston" site, the Hamilton neighbourhood is in the midst of big transformation. What's next? The Oasis Car wash or Chevron sites?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1595  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 10:15 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowerLonsdaleMike View Post
What's next? The Oasis Car wash or Chevron sites?
Hopefully that entire De Dutch/Popeyes/packaging depot/Oasis block. That area is an eyesore.

I can't find any info on Lotus Pacific even being a developer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1596  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 10:51 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by domusile View Post
there was a rumour that they were going to combine the two retail units on the waterfront side of the gallery with Cactus Club occupying the space. Not sure if that is true/still happening
Not sure if it's Cactus Club but they're sticking a restaurant in there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1597  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2017, 12:10 AM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is offline
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,796
an article and some pics of the Polygon Gallery @ Lonsdale

http://theprovince.com/entertainment/loc...76?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
__________________
i have no idea what's going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1598  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2017, 3:36 AM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Google Maps has a new satellite image on my phone and you can start to see the decimation of Moodyville on it.



That was all single family homes a year ago. And it's even more clear-cut now, every single house shown in this photo - minus about three hold-outs - is getting demolished.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1599  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2017, 5:41 AM
Tvisforme's Avatar
Tvisforme Tvisforme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 2,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
... every single house shown in this photo - minus about three hold-outs - is getting demolished.
I haven't been past 3rd and St David's recently. Is the old bus yard part of the redevelopment?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1600  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2017, 5:53 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tvisforme View Post
I haven't been past 3rd and St David's recently. Is the old bus yard part of the redevelopment?
No, I don't think they've sold it yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Metro Vancouver & the Fraser Valley
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:55 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.