General Vancouver Updates

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

Incredible to me that this kind of density seems to be okay here (and at River District) but anything near transit seems to be an uphill battle every time. The Cambie plan calls for townhomes and SFHs within walking distance of stations but this is fine?

I call it "opportunistic" redevelopment.

The City of Vancouver will allow major tower projects on historically consolidated properties,
but not where land assembly is required for fear of upsetting the voters.

i.e. Safeways and other grocery store sites (King Edward Village / Granville & 70th / El Dorado)
Former light industrial / institutional areas (Collingwood / Carling O'Keefe / Oakridge Bus Depot / Pearson Lands)

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

You missed 555 Cordova.

I can't help but take that personally

555 Cordova crossed my mind, but honestly I wasn't sure if it was still in the minds of people that can bring it to life. The day of it's resurrection, when it rides in on a white horse and smotes that waste of space parking lot, I will be among those who cheer.

Originally Posted by officedweller

PS there is the office space thread.

I actually debated about posting it there, but wasn't sure if it was the right fit. I was conflicted since it was a list projects, rather than providing more in-depth info about them and the space being provided. Props to Changing City for moving it to the right spot.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I call it "opportunistic" redevelopment.

The City of Vancouver will allow major tower projects on historically consolidated properties,
but not where land assembly is required for fear of upsetting the voters.

i.e. Safeways and other grocery store sites (King Edward Village / Granville & 70th / El Dorado)
Former light industrial / institutional areas (Collingwood / Carling O'Keefe / Oakridge Bus Depot / Pearson Lands)

Precisely. I had a conversation with a planner about exactly that when they were redoing the Collingwood plan. I asked "Why isn't density higher like it was in the 1990s for the area and the former plan?". Their straight up answer was "Well, this used to be an industrial area, so it was easier to redevelop." Are you kidding me? How much harder will it be to redevelop when you don't even allow development. —-backwards.

[officedweller]

Yup.

In comparison Burnaby has the wherewithal to stick with its town centre plans.

For Brentwood and Lougheed, the existing uses are largely light industrial and retail mall - so easy to do.

At Metrotown - they've stuck to their — and are allowing redevelopment of walk-up rentals building sites.

[invisibleairwaves]

Tbh I wouldn't celebrate Burnaby on this front either- they've been about as willing to upzone SFH areas as Vancouver. Only difference is that Metrotown and Brentwood are chock full of these "historically consolidated" lots, which includes the walkups. This gives them a lot more room to grow in spite of their unwillingness to rezone.

Much like Vancouver though, it hasn't done any good on the affordability side of things, and I'm starting to wonder if that's by design. The City's planners do, after all, have a very close working relationship with a small group of developers who have a vested interest in sky-high housing prices and the resources to acquire the big sites. Wouldn't be good for business if smaller developers were able to buy up and densify RS-1s and undercut them. Put that together with the city's onerous parking and frontage requirements and approvals process choking out smaller-scale development and...well, something stinks.

I get that the political arguments around it, but this Council manages to muster the political courage to push ever more bike lanes despite the constant screeching and bad press. This is different.

[officedweller]

I think Burnaby still has some areas - like the Heights on Hastings - that have smaller projects.

[Tetsuo]

Small SFH land assemblies for rowhome/townhomes is at least present in Vancouver, whereas Burnaby, you only see them being developed on former light industry/"opportunistic" lots. Plenty in south Burnaby

[Vin]

In Vancouver, after going through the hassle of assembling the many small SFHs by developers, least the City can do is allow higher density construction. Townhomes are just not enough to create the desired densities for many of the prime neighbourhoods.

Not all new condo/mixed developments built on opportunistic lots. Metrotown walk-up area is a prime example. At least the city doesn't turn the former industrial lots into low density townhomes/low rise condos like what we see in Vancouver. Such a waste of good space.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

I expected some cheapening, but cannot believe this was what resulted from this render:

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by dleung

I expected some cheapening, but cannot believe this was what resulted from this render:

the hell? it doesn't even look the same at all.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

Small SFH land assemblies for rowhome/townhomes is at least present in Vancouver, whereas Burnaby, you only see them being developed on former light industry/"opportunistic" lots. Plenty in south Burnaby

In the Edmonds area of Burnaby plenty of single family homes and duplexes have been demolished for small scale townhouse developments as per the the town centre plan. All along Royal Oak single family homes have been replaced with townhomes and lowrises as well.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by dleung

I expected some cheapening, but cannot believe this was what resulted from this render:

You shouldn't have expected that render to match the building because the developer failed to sell enough units (twice), and sold the site to another developer, who hired a different architect who designed this building, using similar massing but a totally different design, that was supposed to look like this.

[source]

[officedweller]

Yeah, that render was the first developer - different finishing, but similar/same massing.
The as built was by a different developer.

Originally Posted by dleung

I expected some cheapening, but cannot believe this was what resulted from this render:

[phesto]

Yeah, looks not far off from the correct rendering.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by Vin

Not all new condo/mixed developments built on opportunistic lots. Metrotown walk-up area is a prime example. At least the city doesn't turn the former industrial lots into low density townhomes/low rise condos like what we see in Vancouver. Such a waste of good space.

Burnaby is doing this along the former BCER light industrial between Royal Oak/Metro

Originally Posted by vanman

In the Edmonds area of Burnaby plenty of single family homes and duplexes have been demolished for small scale townhouse developments as per the the town centre plan. All along Royal Oak single family homes have been replaced with townhomes and lowrises as well.

Many of those have not occurred within the past decade.
I can only think of the one on Stride Ave and another on Britton. Albeit now in the Edmonds area it has been increasing with a few land assemblies near Highgate and the future Southgate.

Royal Oak has been an assembly mix of SFH + light industrial.

It's nothing as it was late 90's/early 00's

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

Burnaby is doing this along the former BCER light industrial between Royal Oak/Metro

It's not prevalent, and the City has plenty of high-density neighbourhoods to make up for that one area.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Previous UDP Meeting

Rejected Design
http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/3560hullst/documents/3560HullStreet-ModelImages.pdf


My photos below














http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/UDPMinutes-Jan10,2018.pdf

THAT the Panel SUPPORT the project with the following recommendations to be reviewed by City
Staff:

• Stronger differentiation between the individual buildings,
• To investigate the possibility of increasing the outdoor play spaces,
• To integrate the heritage house through landscaping.
  

Related Commentary:
The panel congratulated the applicant team for returning with a revised project that had been improved in all aspects. The panel noted they were excited to see 3-bedroom townhome rentals in Vancouver.

The panel supported the density and massing of the building, including the additional height for the 4-storey apartment building. The vocabulary of the architecture has improved and has a right positive modern fit. The modern backdrop to the heritage house was well received.

The livability of the project and is connectivity to the neighbourhood have been greatly improved. The reduced yard setbacks were supported, as these were enabling a more livable project, with wider courtyards. Raising the basement units will also increase their access to light. The outdoor
space and common amenities have also been significantly improved. More play space would be a further improvement, particularly because the development is oriented to families.

Suggestions for improvement included: revisiting the band of colors and materials on the townhouse buildings to better differentiate them; looking at how the outdoor space can be improved to drawn in neighbourhood kids; using landscape and materials to better integrate the heritage house

I agree with the UDP, a much better project overall.

[SpongeG]

I get that they want to save that house but it looks kinda stupid.

[the_prof]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I get that they want to save that house but it looks kinda stupid.

agree, it's not like they are saving a 13th century church or roman ruins; no house in vancouver is worth preserving if you ask me

[dreambrother808]

I love these random “ghost” houses in developments. What’s the problem? The rest of the development is understandably mediocre and certainly not made any worse with the house remaining.