Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[Feathered Friend]

(Much food - So good)

Handsome Vancouver Mid-Rise Reveals Community Divide on Parking – Should Surface Lots Return?

4906-4970 Quebec Street
Often when we attend an open house event we hear people claim to know their local history, yet they only recount the most recent years. This has been true in Gastown, where some claim short buildings are the heritage of that area, forgetting that it was once home to the tallest buildings in the British Empire. Others feel their neighbourhood’s character is one of exclusiveness, ignoring that long before Vancouver was visited by Europeans, strong inter-community ties were cherished and valued.

Fortunately, those common misinterpretations did not happen at this meeting, as we spoke with several members of the former Little Mountain community. Those conversations did not really relate to this building, but we had to note how these life-long neighbourhood residents spoke of the past, and the trauma they endured when their homes were demolished over 9 years ago. While they were happy to learn of the Vancouver’s tenant relocation policy, and that large projects are now phased in to reduce displacement, their hurt was still obvious. It is an important lesson that, when a proposal is handled badly, it can have a lasting effect, even years later.

Fortunately, this project is not badly handled, and is honestly one of the best looking mid-rise buildings we have seen in Vancouver

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/11/09...e-on-parking-should-surface-lots-return/

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

(Much food - So good)



https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/11/09...e-on-parking-should-surface-lots-return/

Who is the actual developer behind this one? (And why is that always so hard to find on the city docs?)

As an aside, look at how much plastic wrap is on those loaves?! Are we all so fragile we can't eat slices cut from one loaf?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who is the actual developer behind this one? (And why is that always so hard to find on the city docs?)

As an aside, look at how much plastic wrap is on those loaves?! Are we all so fragile we can't eat slices cut from one loaf?

Developer is Aoyaun: http://aoyuaninternational.com/

Rezoning Applications can be found here: https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who is the actual developer behind this one? (And why is that always so hard to find on the city docs?)

As an aside, look at how much plastic wrap is on those loaves?! Are we all so fragile we can't eat slices cut from one loaf?

… and that plastic tray for the cookies!

[whatnext]

Orr Developments purpose built 75-unit rental at Main and East 49th nearing completion. This is exactly what the city needs, non-nonsense rental built right to the street with a mix of unit sizes. Well done!

[IMG]IMG_8187 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_8186 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[BodomReaper]

Agreed, I was admiring this project a few days ago. Terrific built form and programming - especially the fact that it has deep, high-ceiling retail units that can house more than barbers and dentists.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Agreed, I was admiring this project a few days ago. Terrific built form and programming - especially the fact that it has deep, high-ceiling retail units that can house more than barbers and dentists.

I can’t recall if the plan was for All India to go back in the retail? The block with Himalaya is also up for redevelopment.

[whatnext]

McKinnon by Cressey in Kerrisdale. I like to think of this building as the poster child of the absurdity for "let's build our way to affordability". Affordable rentals and/or co-ops destroyed $2.4 million townhouses?

[IMG]IMG_8191 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

But look, only 10% down! Thanks for the affordability option Cressey!

[IMG]IMG_8192 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

Looking at the building in the background which was similar to what Cressey demo'ed there are three floors of residential. And in McKinney? 3 floors of residential. How is this in any way a gain?

[IMG]IMG_8193 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]


And if Cressey can do it, let's all get into the party. Two separate affordable rentals waiting to be demolished on the other side of East Boulevard for some pretentious pile of twaddle:

[IMG]IMG_8194 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]IMG_8195 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]IMG_8197 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Changing City]

That's McKinnon. I'm not defending the prices - that's down to the absurdities of the westside market - but I suspect anyone who spends $2.4m on a townhouse today might find they have a loss on paper for quite a while if the market continues the way it has been going recently. And it's likely that the other projects you show may struggle to find buyers too, if they put the units on the market at similar prices.

In terms of net units, McKinnon has 40 units, and the three market co-ops there all dated from the late 1940s, and had 44 (smaller) units. As market co-ops, it's pretty much the same as a strata building selling for redevelopment - they agreed to the sale; nobody was renovicted. Presumably Cressey paid all the co-op members more than their propertiers were assessed at, or would sell on the market. And late 1940s homes would probably have needed a lot of money spent to bring them up to 21st century standards.

Over most of the City of Vancouver, rental properties are protected, but there is an exception for rental building in commercial zones (C-2, C3-A for example). Those aren't protected, but the recent report to Council says 240 rental units have been lost in areas like this since 2009, but there hasn't been a net loss of rental units because Rental 100 projects in commercial zones (like the Main and 49th example you posted recently) have seen more built than replaced. As the report notes, "In 2017, Vancouver contributed 80 per cent of the region’s 4,290 rental units currently under construction."

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's McKinnon. I'm not defending the prices - that's down to the absurdities of the westside market - but I suspect anyone who spends $2.4m on a townhouse today might find they have a loss on paper for quite a while if the market continues the way it has been going recently. And it's likely that the other projects you show may struggle to find buyers too, if they put the units on the market at similar prices.

In terms of net units, McKinnon has 40 units, and the three market co-ops there all dated from the late 1940s, and had 44 (smaller) units. As market co-ops, it's pretty much the same as a strata building selling for redevelopment - they agreed to the sale; nobody was renovicted. Presumably Cressey paid all the co-op members more than their propertiers were assessed at, or would sell on the market. And late 1940s homes would probably have needed a lot of money spent to bring them up to 21st century standards.

Over most of the City of Vancouver, rental properties are protected, but there is an exception for rental building in commercial zones (C-2, C3-A for example). Those aren't protected, but the recent report to Council says 240 rental units have been lost in areas like this since 2009, but there hasn't been a net loss of rental units because Rental 100 projects in commercial zones (like the Main and 49th example you posted recently) have seen more built than replaced. As the report notes, "In 2017, Vancouver contributed 80 per cent of the region’s 4,290 rental units currently under construction."

Thanks for the McKinnon name (corrected). I do wonder how many of the units Cressey may have bought up individually before announcing their intentions? And we did lose 4 units total on this. Regardless, it's still a loss of affordable ownership options for the neighbourhood. Where are the people working in Kerrisdale retail supposed to live? Ot the teachers, the workers in the nearby care homes? These are no longer complete communities. Adding insult to injury, I'm surprised at the absolute banality of Cressey's designs in this neighbourhood. I'd expect better at those prices.

As to the rental, we all know that despite how well-intentioned the developer, the replacement rental is never as affordable, and even the definition of "affordable" is stretched in many cases. True replacement would be units replaced at the same cost, an economic impossibility unless the property was vastly upzoned. I'm glad Vancouver is doing something in terms of replacement, we all know Burnaby was doing nothing.

[GenWhy?]

I think the term "affordable rentals" is misused. Many rental buildings that are of 40's 50's stock are simply "well-below market rental rates", meaning they - typically - mechanically, structurally, and interior-wise (cosmetic) have not been upgraded/updated (well) in years and need a significant amount of work. Once they are upgraded... the market dictates the price they demand after those renovations.

The term "affordable rental" placed on older rental buildings usually assumes that they can be maintained at below market rates independent from the owner's desire, situation, and intent (renovations and upgrades) and independent from the market.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think the term "affordable rentals" is misused. Many rental buildings that are of 40's 50's stock are simply "well-below market rental rates", meaning they - typically - mechanically, structurally, and interior-wise (cosmetic) have not been upgraded/updated (well) in years and need a significant amount of work. Once they are upgraded... the market dictates the price they demand after those renovations.

The term "affordable rental" placed on older rental buildings usually assumes that they can be maintained at below market rates independent from the owner's desire, situation, and intent (renovations and upgrades) and independent from the market.

But there's an important place for those older buildings. If having a roof over your head means having to live with a dowdy kitchen and formica countertops instead of granite, most people would choose having a roof over their head! Given land and construction costs it is impossible to replicate those kind of units today. Once they're gone, they're gone.

[Feathered Friend]

New East Georgia Building Typology is Thoughtful, Considerate, and Just What Vancouver Needs
1102-1138 East Georgia Street – (1134 East Georgia)
From the first time this project was introduced to its future neighbours, the community has loved it. That was still true at its recent city led open house too, even though several small changes had been made since its first introduction. Frankly, neither Hannah nor I thought the Urban Design Panel would find any serious problems with the proposal either, but sometimes these experts notice things we don’t.

That didn’t happen this time though, as the project received strong praise from every panellist, and only a couple small suggestions.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/11/19...nsiderate-and-just-what-vancouver-needs/

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by officedweller

… and that plastic tray for the cookies!

that's starbucks catering

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But there's an important place for those older buildings. If having a roof over your head means having to live with a dowdy kitchen and formica countertops instead of granite, most people would choose having a roof over their head! Given land and construction costs it is impossible to replicate those kind of units today. Once they're gone, they're gone.

Precisely. As they are renovated, by the owner, they can be charged at rents that the owner seems fit and acceptable in the local / current market.

[Feathered Friend]

Little Mountain Adjacent Policy Leaves City Staff Apologetic, the UDP Confused, and the Fate of 55 Homes in Question

4906-4970 Quebec Street
When Hannah and I first saw this design, we wondered what could go wrong with such a simple, straight forward building. Unfortunately, we aren’t experts, so we missed a key flaw, not in the concept, but with the Little Mountain Adjacent Area Rezoning Policy which could doom this proposal, and all others like it in the area.

I knew from the start of the applicant’s introduction that this was going to be a rough ride. For reasons I can’t understand, the applicant revealed they were thinking of upending their whole plan by moving the main entrance from Quebec Street to 33rd Avenue. When they admitted they hadn’t done the shading analysis yet, and were unsure if they would take the building to passive house levels, the road only got worse.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/11/28...ed-and-the-fate-of-55-homes-in-question/

[whatnext]

Who was the (unprofessional IMHO) developer? Why doesn't the city require the developer's name on these rezoning notices?

[GenWhy?]

Developer is on page 1 of the project package in the City's link for the rezoning application.

[LeftCoaster]

It's Aoyuan BTW.

And it's not totally unusual to make design changes during a rezoning phase, I certainly wouldn't call it unprofessional. Usually comments made in a UDP presentation are by the architect as well, not the developer.

Glad to see the UDP pointed out the flaws in the N/S facades, they are very problematic and need a lot of work IMO.

[Feathered Friend]

Vancouver Mid-Rise Hopes to Grow Small Businesses and New Housing Along Nanaimo Street

2336 – 2366 Charles Street
Neither Darren nor I are really sure why we are receiving so many pre-application notices lately. Perhaps there is a backlog of proposals which were waiting for the election season to be over, or maybe it has to do with the Winter break coming up. Whatever the reason, we are glad that so many of our fellow Vancouverites have chosen to share the notice cards they receive with us. After all, we love learning more about the changes our city is experiencing, and sharing that news with everyone.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/11/29...es-and-new-housing-along-nanaimo-street/