Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[whatnext]

The march of unaffordable townhouses continues down Oak Street. This is the optimistically named "Shaughnessy" at Oak and Park.

[IMG]IMG_9217 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[osirisboy]

Personally. I love how they look. Unfortunately, they are completely in the wrong location.

[GenWhy?]

Whatsnext, it's my understanding you're getting two of Alabaster Homes project's mixed up. Oak + Park and then Shaughnessy Residences. While the first collection of townhomes unfortunately is on a busy street without a public boulevard, the Shaughnessy Street project is well suited. Schools nearby need these so do the older suites and rentals.
What's good to see is that both of these follow the Marpole Plan and are actually going forward / built. What does still get me is that lack of discretionary at-grade use for Oak St and 70th Avenue and 67th.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Personally. I love how they look. Unfortunately, they are completely in the wrong location.

This...

[officedweller]

Could be in Langley - maybe on Fraser Highway?
PriceTags should do one of its - "Guess where this is?" posts with this pic.

Originally Posted by whatnext

The march of unaffordable townhouses continues down Oak Street. This is the optimistically named "Shaughnessy" at Oak and Park.

[IMG]IMG_9217 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Could be in Langley - maybe on Fraser Highway?
PriceTags should do one of its - "Guess where this is?" posts with this pic.

You're right. Except in places like Langley etc they build it with a Bunche I'd silly internal streets that don't connect. At least here they build on a normal street grid

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Whatsnext, it's my understanding you're getting two of Alabaster Homes project's mixed up. Oak + Park and then Shaughnessy Residences. While the first collection of townhomes unfortunately is on a busy street without a public boulevard, the Shaughnessy Street project is well suited. Schools nearby need these so do the older suites and rentals.
What's good to see is that both of these follow the Marpole Plan and are actually going forward / built. What does still get me is that lack of discretionary at-grade use for Oak St and 70th Avenue and 67th.

My bad, the sign on the corner at Park says Shaghnessy Residences. Is it the same developer for both?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

My bad, the sign on the corner at Park says Shaghnessy Residences. Is it the same developer for both?

Alabaster Homes for both, correct.

[whatnext]

Found the answer to what was going in the retail space at Dunbar Terrace. I'm surprised, given the population density of the area.

[IMG]IMG_9244 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[GenWhy?]

Strategic locations. You'll see more soon in similar areas. This one was beyond a pain to get through though. Can't remember if this one has a "separate" doctor's office or just their pharmacy. We learnt a lot of lessons on this site for the next few, which was good to have prior to getting on board with them. City Staff really likes to pull the concept of larger format stores apart (and with good reason I get it) but almost to the point where they don't want us in there at all. They want every LD to be a Crosstown format. The grade variation really played into a benefit for the store here.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Strategic locations. You'll see more soon in similar areas. This one was beyond a pain to get through though. Can't remember if this one has a "separate" doctor's office or just their pharmacy. We learnt a lot of lessons on this site for the next few, which was good to have prior to getting on board with them. City Staff really likes to pull the concept of larger format stores apart (and with good reason I get it) but almost to the point where they don't want us in there at all. They want every LD to be a Crosstown format. The grade variation really played into a benefit for the store here.

Interesting. I usually associate LD with high traffic locations (Cambie & Boradway, West End etc) but it makes sense to counter the multitude of Shoppers springing up everywhere.

[officedweller]

I find it to be a pain to shop in stores with different levels (lots of ramps, stairs and railings in the way and short aisles that require more searching for things around corners).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I find it to be a pain to shop in stores with different levels (lots of ramps, stairs and railings in the way and short aisles that require more searching for things around corners).

A problem we didn't have with small retail shops occupying just one lot, but as parcels get consolidated it will become more common. How does a builder plan for the fact the entire space may or may not be occupied by one business, thus triggering a lot of accessibility issues?

[officedweller]

Yeah, it's usually more pronounced when there's a hill involved and keeping multiple (potential) store entrances at grade along the whole frontage.
The narrow blocks (with a rear alley) also prevent doing a shallow frontage of small shops (like some Safeways).
Scenarios with purpose built retail units for larger stores just centre the entrance and dig into the hill on one side and elevate on the other - or awkwardly dig a lower level store below (like Canadian Tire / Best Buy on Cambie) or London Drugs / IGA on Broadway at Vine (?)).
The Rise did a good job along Cambie, but it's on an alley-free block and the steep grade worked in their favour.
Another option is to have large format on the 2nd floor like Nesters at The Independent (but that's not really workable in the 4-5 storey buildings)

[Feathered Friend]

Will New Rental Housing be Lost to Fraser Street’s Bermuda Triangle?

3615 – 3645 Fraser Street
One of the things I find most interesting living in a major city is how quickly things change. In one block, industrial lands can turn into homes, major arterial streets transform to quiet pedestrian roads, and acceptance of new forms of housing becomes a resistance to any type of change.

Unfortunately, Fraser Street ticks the last box. We have noticed events for developments in the lower half of the 3000 block usually draw a small, but supportive attendance. Meanwhile, up the hill to the south, one individual at an open house cautioned Darren that, going forward, he would be easily identified and remembered for his support of a typical Vancouver Mid-rise.

Since then, we could not help but wonder at what point on Fraser do these proposals cross an invisible line, and encounter this zone of opposition. So, despite Darren’s new found hesitation at attending events on Fraser Street, we were curious to see if this proposal for 64 market rental homes would cross that line.

Continued at:
https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/01/21...lost-to-fraser-streets-bermuda-triangle/

[Tetsuo]

Man how crazy are some people implying threats like that ! ^^^^

I'm sure if Darren needs some muscle to back him up there's plenty of CityDuo and SSP readers thankful of you two willing to accompany!

[GenWhy?]

Really sad I had a prior committment and wasn't able to attend event, especially since it was a pre-app(?). I mean when one does this for work...

What really prevails is the notion that urban vancovuer ends in the Metro Core and suburban Vancouver ... well... exists. We've been seeing a great policy shift in relation to corridors lately and great support from the City, but, as always, lots of work to be done. 6-storeys are the new 3 for transit corridors. Which makes perfect sense... it's just that the rest of the area wasn't (re)zoned to keep up with the city or growth and there is an imbalance. You do see this dynamism in areas like Strathcona, Mount Pleasant and Fairview.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Really sad I had a prior committment and wasn't able to attend event, especially since it was a pre-app(?). I mean when one does this for work...

What really prevails is the notion that urban vancovuer ends in the Metro Core and suburban Vancouver ... well... exists. We've been seeing a great policy shift in relation to corridors lately and great support from the City, but, as always, lots of work to be done. 6-storeys are the new 3 for transit corridors. Which makes perfect sense... it's just that the rest of the area wasn't (re)zoned to keep up with the city or growth and there is an imbalance. You do see this dynamism in areas like Strathcona, Mount Pleasant and Fairview.

Does this cover Broadway? Are there hints that the current C3-A and C2 zoning will have higher FSR’s to allow for construction from 3-6? Or are they just planning to leave it at the current FSR but allow for more provided the development fees are paid?

I remember you mentioned you were sitting down to talk with them regarding Broadway so if there’s anything you can share I’d be intersted to know.

[Feathered Friend]

A UDP Divided – Are Four Floors Appropriate for Dunbar or a Precedent Setting Horizontal Monolith

3591 West 19th Avenue (3456 – 3480 Dunbar St. & 3591 West 19th Ave.)
As someone with no background in architecture or urban planning, the time I’ve spent at the Urban Design Panel over the last couple years has really taught me a lot. Occasionally, it even provides some extra insight into development applications that are already on the city’s website. That was the case for this four storey mid-rise proposed under the existing C-2 zoning at the corner of 19th and Dunbar.

Of course, given the neighbourhood, the building’s design is rather lavish, as the applicant explained the horizontal banding was designed to create a sense of movement. Fortunately, the materials are both luxurious and durable, as the band is clad with limestone, and the wood is actually metal panelling. That said, a large tree at the entrance to the laneway has also been preserved...

...This person had no problem with the building generally, but for Dunbar, felt it was a horizontal monolith.

More at:
https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/01/29...a-precedent-setting-horizontal-monolith/

[GenWhy?]

True, it does lack a hard vertical expression. This is what you get, however, when the City typically demands 100-120' of frontage and says "we'd be in a better position to support your proposal if you acquire the adjacent property", and not to mention meeting the City's parking requirements. These are definitely, as you and many put it, the new Vancouver Special.