Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[Feathered Friend]

4750 Granville Street
You may think that attending an open house about 32 homes isn’t worth your time. It’s understandable, you’re busy, you’ve had a long day, and taking part in this consultation might not be your ideal way to relax. Really, who could be upset by such a small increase of new homes to their neighbourhood anyway. Well, I would like to point out that a group calling itself the Shaughnessy Heights Property Owner’s Association is encouraging its members to make every possible effort to attend this event.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/11/30...nessy-open-its-doors-to-32-rental-homes/

Even though this one is being held in a church, I hope many of you show up, as it going to need a lot more than thoughts and prayers.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/11/30...nessy-open-its-doors-to-32-rental-homes/

Even though this one is being held in a church, I hope many of you show up, as it going to need a lot more than thoughts and prayers.

i will have to voice my opposition to this, that's for sure.

has no place in Shaughnessy. Oak St, sure, more South on Granville St, sure. in that area of Shaughnessy? no.

4 floors is not at all acceptable for this area.

they barely allow 4 floors on Cambie St, along the Canada-Line.

100% opposition from me.

[osirisboy]

Aren't some of the houses in shaugnessy almost 4 floors? Lol. It seems fine to me. Especially if they replace more houses

[Tetsuo]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Shaughnessy Heights Property Owner’s Association claimed these houses to be part of the area's heritage

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Aren't some of the houses in shaugnessy almost 4 floors? Lol. It seems fine to me. Especially if they replace more houses

no, 3 floors and the 3rd floor generally doesn't stick out like a regular level does. also, big difference when it is 1 house, on a very large property, that you can barely see. huge difference.

this is the 1 area that this should 100% not be allowed; at all.

[Aroundtheworld]

This is on Granville St. There should be medium density mixed-use development on a major neighbourhood thoroughfare.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

no, 3 floors and the 3rd floor generally doesn't stick out like a regular level does. also, big difference when it is 1 house, on a very large property, that you can barely see. huge difference.

this is the 1 area that this should 100% not be allowed; at all.

I just don't see the issue. I don't think diversity in building form in the same area is a negative thing

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i will have to voice my opposition to this, that's for sure.

has no place in Shaughnessy. Oak St, sure, more South on Granville St, sure. in that area of Shaughnessy? no.

4 floors is not at all acceptable for this area.

they barely allow 4 floors on Cambie St, along the Canada-Line.

100% opposition from me.

Is the issue the height, density, form, or type?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Is the issue the height, density, form, or type?

Judging by his punctuation, probably all of the above .

The NIMBYs can continue to oppose absolutely everything but when the government realizes that people are leaving the city due to unaffordability then they are going to need to collect from someone to upkeep the infrastructure. And they will come collecting via property taxes.

[Feathered Friend]

Bye Bye Fraser Street Pie – A Tide of Affordable Rental Housing Could Fill the Hole in Vancouver’s Heart

3429 – 3469 Fraser Street
There have been many changes as Vancouver has transitioned from a polluted industrial city to a more family friendly home. Proof of that is in the tar soaked lands of the False Creek that once hosted industrial use, and even a coal gas plant, and are now mostly covered over with green park space. However, there is another, more subtle area which reveals this change, the neighbourhood at Fraser and Kingsway.

Perhaps it is due to the needs of staff from the nearby Mount Saint Joseph Hospital, but this core retail node has transformed from parking lots, car dealerships, and repair shops, into an area that offers some of Vancouver’s best restaurants and new housing. Unfortunately, as it is hemmed in by the hospital to the west, an ICBC Claims Centre to the east, and single family homes to the north, a large part of the growth has been directed southwards along Fraser Street.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/12/03...could-fill-the-hole-in-vancouvers-heart/

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Is the issue the height, density, form, or type?

yes, it is too tall considering the highest building there is 3 floors with the 3rd floor generally integrated into the roof-line while also build on a huge property, not close to the neighbours. so lower, and smaller.

yes, this area is low density, single family, grand beautiful homes. there shouldn't be a building like this with this kind of density in this area. this area should be, and needs to be protected.

yes, the form is an issue since it isn't at all what this area is. allowing this, is exactly why Shaughnessy was created after the West End was changed. as i am sure most are aware, the West End was once what Shaughnessy is today.

the idea it is rental, that isn't the issue really. but it is no secret that Shaughnessy homes that were turned to rental/rooming houses ended up neglected and brought down the character of the area. higher end rental would be acceptable, but not with the 3 point mentioned above.

this is NOT an acceptable area for this kind of development. considering Cambie St barely makes 4 floors along the Canada Line, this is not at all acceptable; not in the slightest.

south of 41st is more acceptable a location than this. but this is north of 33rd Ave, which means it is not only in "3rd" Shaughnessy, but it is in 2nd Shaughnessy.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i will have to voice my opposition to this, that's for sure.

has no place in Shaughnessy. Oak St, sure, more South on Granville St, sure. in that area of Shaughnessy? no.

4 floors is not at all acceptable for this area.

they barely allow 4 floors on Cambie St, along the Canada-Line.

100% opposition from me.

It's 100% opposition from me too. A floor space ratio of 1.37 is absurdly low. Density should be at least doubled.

No one neighbourhood should be exempt from enduring the growing pains of a big city. It's pure arrogance and selfishness to expect others to take on all the pains and discomfort associated with growth.

[misher]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's 100% opposition from me too. A floor space ratio of 1.37 is absurdly low. Density should be at least doubled.

No one neighbourhood should be exempt from enduring the growing pains of a big city. It's pure arrogance and selfishness to expect others to take on all the pains and discomfort associated with growth.

My personal opinion is that if that neighborhood votes to stay the same we should respect that decision unless absolutely necessary. We don't have the construction capacity to densify the entire city anyway. Likely current construction and plans will keep us occupied for the next 20-30 years.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by misher

My personal opinion is that if that neighborhood votes to stay the same we should respect that decision unless absolutely necessary. We don't have the construction capacity to densify the entire city anyway. Likely current construction and plans will keep us occupied for the next 20-30 years.

Congrats, you're a NIMBY

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's 100% opposition from me too. A floor space ratio of 1.37 is absurdly low. Density should be at least doubled.

No one neighbourhood should be exempt from enduring the growing pains of a big city. It's pure arrogance and selfishness to expect others to take on all the pains and discomfort associated with growth.

you make it sound like there is nowhere else for this to go. yeah, because the entirety of the city is bursting at the seams and this is the only place left with single family homes where this can go. there are tons of places that this can go, but your attitude has nothing to do with reason, but has to do with emotion since "they should have it to" yeah, why have 1 area be free from this and remain what it historically is.

but i wont argue this with you as i do my best not to argue online and your attitude isn't about a discussion, its about screw the rich because they are rich.

go further south but there is no reason for it to be here. go to Oak St, go to Arbutus street. but NOT Shaughnessy.


as another note, i don't think only 1 neighbourhood should be spared the growing pains of density. i think densifying the entire city is a short sighted decision we will regret in the future. but if that is what will happen, then Shaughnessy needs to be the one exempt area.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you make it sound like there is nowhere else for this to go. yeah, because the entirety of the city is bursting at the seams and this is the only place left with single family homes where this can go. there are tons of places that this can go, but your attitude has nothing to do with reason, but has to do with emotion since "they should have it to" yeah, why have 1 area be free from this and remain what it historically is.

but i wont argue this with you as i do my best not to argue online and your attitude isn't about a discussion, its about screw the rich because they are rich.

go further south but there is no reason for it to be here. go to Oak St, go to Arbutus street. but NOT Shaughnessy.


as another note, i don't think only 1 neighbourhood should be spared the growing pains of density. i think densifying the entire city is a short sighted decision we will regret in the future. but if that is what will happen, then Shaughnessy needs to be the one exempt area.

If you follow local politics you'll find that every neighbourhood opposes change. Marpole didn't even want row-houses. So the fairest thing to do is allow denser developments throughout Vancouver. To just simply stop building as you suggest isn't remotely close to a realistic plan.

Shaughnessy's fairly safe though. I can't see the City doing much in the way of rezoning there for a while. Maybe a long time from now when a light rail line gets to the planning stages. Say about 5 years from now. "Next stop... Shaughnessy Station".

[djh]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's 100% opposition from me too. A floor space ratio of 1.37 is absurdly low. Density should be at least doubled.

No one neighbourhood should be exempt from enduring the growing pains of a big city. It's pure arrogance and selfishness to expect others to take on all the pains and discomfort associated with growth.

I'm interested by this opinion. To summarise the last few opinions voiced on this application, people seem to be either 100% opposed due to the density being way too LOW, or 100% opposed due to the density being way too HIGH.

Genuinely interested if you believe all areas of a city should be the same. Equal density, equal heights, equal transit, equal parks, etc. If so, does that only apply to Residential zoning? How about Industrial or Commercial? I'm trying to make sense of your comment -

"No one neighbourhood should be exempt from enduring the growing pains of a big city"

Because if this really was applied, we'd have every single neighbourhood looking the same, no unique personality that makes businesses or residents choose one place over another apart from a concentric circle defining distance to the city centre. I just don't think in reality this happens.

If your point is that there shouldn't be super underprivileged neighbourhoods, I get and agree with that. But I think every city, town or village will always have certain areas that happen to have an abundance of certain resources, which mean that land will sell for a premium. Just based on those simple economics, building apartments there won't work because no apartment dweller would want to pay those numbers for an arbitrary space in the sky when there is a mansion next-door at the same dollars per square foot but has acres of land. So sometimes, it's just not feasible or sensible to suggest building apartments in certain high-value, low-density areas - let alone the snobbish NIMBY angle of the idea.

Personally I like my own neighbourhood (not Shaugnessy) the way it is, and even though I'm open to change and improvement in it, I wouldn't like it to turn into any other neighbouring area. I chose where I live because of its character. Perhaps the residents of Shaugnessy chose it because they deliberately wanted a quiet, leafy neighbourhood with local shops and schools that are within walking distance (nothing wrong with that, and we can't hate on them for being able to afford that). Maybe adding some slightly more dense buildings is fine and helps make the neighbourhood better, but does it really *need* to be "at least double" the proposed FSR? Taller is often good, but not always better, in my opinion.

[logan5]

Let's look at what other neighbourhoods have had to put up with... The original Expo Line ripping neighbourhoods in half. Pretty much all of Cambie Street being redeveloped. Rezonings in Marpole, Norquay, Grandview/Woodland etc. where major changes are occurring, and all the development around Skytrain stations. And don't forget all the social housing built around the core area where I live. I don't think it's too much to ask to allow a rental building in Shaughnessy. And it's an apartment building with the lowest FSR I've ever seen for an apartment building, which means it will be hardly noticable. Regardless, Shaughnessy and the rest of the west side have had pretty good, and any complaining is a real slap in the face to the rest of us.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Perhaps instead of pushing for more density on this one lot, the real argument should be for equally-dense development on other lots in Shaughnessy? Pitch it as an "enclave" of ultra-luxury lowrises in a future Vancouver full of towers.

Originally Posted by logan5

Shaughnessy's fairly safe though. I can't see the City doing much in the way of rezoning there for a while. Maybe a long time from now when a light rail line gets to the planning stages. Say about 5 years from now. "Next stop... Shaughnessy Station".

I'm not seeing any means or motive to build a tram line down Granville. A B-Line, maybe.

[logan5]

An Arbutus line would run along the Shaughnessy neighbourhood.