Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa
Guess I'm one of the few on here that are against the height. Feel taking the tower form out of the core is a mistake and one we seem hellbent on making over and over again. All for more density just don't see the need for more then about half this height. Not going to voice my non-support to the city just going to sit on my hands on this one. Projects like this though do more to hurt the spread of density outside the core then to help. Work with the community and they will be more willing to make it easier for future projects to continue. This is similar to the bike lane situation where it is creating a us versus them attitude instead of getting the majority of people to work together.
|
I do not disagree with your sentiment and POV, and thank you for voicing it for it has legitimate concerns. There is an us vs. them relationship building, most notably with homeowners (especially those over 55) and renters.
This is however within the Metro Core and is roughly adjacent to 2 major future SkyTrain Stations and the Broadway Uptown office district. The issue with keeping most density and development to the peninsula is you get a land cost issue that prices out most reasonable proformas to build decently priced condos or rental. This project / site boosts the density of the proposal to be solely dedicated to income-tied rental with a varied suite-mix. From an economies of scale POV, the City tried some community plans and faced backlash wo more height for various forms of housing, is facing backlash for more social housing outside the DTES, and faced a lot of backlash over programs to help rezonings for rental. This is almost a last resort pilot program that allows developers to make barely financial sense to make reduced rent units work.
If anything we're simply going back in time to the 60s and 70s on the approach to density and rental, but just with better designs and groundfloor interaction. The income-tied component doesn't work unless there is a height bonus... so we either end up with market rental or something like this. At least until land prices are cut in half or SF homes become obsolete.
When we "work with the community" (Grandview-Woodlands for example) they want more family units, more parking spaces, less height, and more affordable rents. None of those work. Even after Grandview-Woodlands was approved at a reduced plan... rezonings are put up to the community that follow that plan and the community shuts those down making those projects less dense and affordable for Vancouverites. We're beyond 3-4 storey buildings along major arterials or 15-storey buildings next to future SkyTrain at Granville and Broadway.
The reason why this building is so tall is because 20% of it is for real working Vancouverites at an income-tied rate with the rest of the rental units effectively subsidizing the whole building.
Prev
.
Linear Mode
