Little Mountain Redevelopment | U/C

[LeftCoaster]

Looks pretty sharp for social housing. It's about time this gets moving too.

[Feathered Friend]

Here is my coverage of easily one the most visually appealing social housing proposals to grace the UDP in awhile. One of the panels first questions was if the Beech Tree in the model was actually to scale with the building; the answer was a straight forward yes. While not as straight forward, the UDP also gave this a project a "yes," and passed it with some recommendations. 

See my report at the link below for the details.
https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/02/20...untain-social-housing-building/#more-246

[whatnext]

It's only been how many years?

[officedweller]

Looks great!
Nice to see the small windows honestly presented, rather than trying to appear as a larger window wall, then adding spandrel.

[SpongeG]

Vancouver's Little Mountain: The money and the sad history behind a long-stalled project

Once a home to 224 low-income families, Vancouver's 15-acre Little Mountain site is mostly a fenced-off field full of weeds. We reveal new details about the financial structure of this long-delayed deal and some hope for the future.

LORI CULBERT & DAN FUMANO Updated: November 24, 2018

The park where Jeannine Silvestrone played as a girl is cordoned off by a chain-link fence, and the spot where her childhood home stood is now thick with 10-year-old weeds.

“The site was beautiful. … There was lots of outdoor space. The community was very involved with each other, they helped each other and supported each other because we were all in financial need,” Silvestrone says as she stands outside the once-vibrant Little Mountain housing project near 37th and Main Street.

“I cannot believe that this very valuable piece of land that was supposed to have social housing for 224 families is still empty.”

She, her mother, stepfather and two brothers were among the families who once lived in the federal government-run project that offered 224 affordable, multi-bedroom apartments and row houses to low-income parents for more than five decades.

But when the land was sold to a private developer in 2008, the families were asked to leave, most of the homes were torn down, and a decade later a majority of the replacement social housing has not been built — despite escalating housing costs that have chased many families out of the city.

“The way I see it, the whole thing was a terrible mess and no one wants to take responsibility for it,” said Silvestrone, a retired teacher who now lives in Coquitlam.

Silvestrone and others outraged by the lack of activity on the valuable site have demanded answers for years.

The project is slated to have 17 residential and mixed-use buildings that will include 282 social housing units (25 per cent of them with two or more bedrooms for families), a 69-space child care, a new neighbourhood house, a public park, and 1,400 market-rate units.

...

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...2SBDsaSt5KqvDwIfl0YZnQnbgFFUwE5yz5bj0Mao

[whatnext]

A big article in today's Globe & Mail about Little Mountain. The more I red the angrier I got. Another BC Liberal scam, did you know the payments are on installment, so we've basically been floating Holborn for over 12 years?!

Many are hoping that this will be the year that construction will finally get into swing at the Little Mountain site, which was one of Canada’s largest social housing projects – about four city blocks in size. The developer is expected to begin a long-overdue master-planned community at the mostly empty, grassy acreage that is adjacent to Queen Elizabeth Park. Whether or not it will be enough is another matter.

Little Mountain is six hectares of prime property in the Main Street neighbourhood, situated between Ontario and Main Streets and East 33rd and East 37th Avenues. It’s been 12 years since the province phased out 224 units of low-income housing and evicted about 700 residents after selling the property to private developer Holborn, best known as the builder of Vancouver’s Trump Tower. Clusters of low-rise social housing buildings were torn down and the residents dispersed. They were originally told new social housing would be built, and they’d be welcomed back. The years have ticked by...

...The application to build one eight-storey building is a somewhat underwhelming start to a much-anticipated master-planned community, say those who’ve been closely involved.

David Chudnovsky was the NDP member of legislative assembly for Vancouver-Kensington from 2005 to 2009, and he’s lived in the area for years. He represented evicted Little Mountain residents and attended most of the meetings before and after the decision was made to raze their homes. He, too, questions the progress of the plan.

“My skepticism comes from 12 years of waiting around,” Mr. Chudnovsky says. “Yes, they say that there is an application for a development permit. They say it will be built in 2019. We will see. And if it were to be built in 2019, it certainly wouldn’t be finished in 2019. Forgive me if I’m skeptical.”

Mr. Chudnovsky has applied for a copy of the original agreement between the province and Holborn, in 2007, which has been kept secret. He hopes to receive a copy of it in February, as part of a Freedom of Information request.

“I and many others have asked to see the contract right from the beginning, so that we would know for sure what the provisions are. “It’s never been made available. In the next few weeks, I expect to hear from the province about the availability of that contract.”...

...Little Mountain was one of Canada’s largest and oldest social housing projects, built in 1954 and operated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC). It was a community of nearly 700 low-income people housed in 224 multifamily housing units. Kids played on the huge lawn that surrounded the low-rise buildings. It was a thriving little community where neighbours knew each other for decades. When the federal government transferred it to BC Housing in 2007, the Crown corporation put out a call for bids. The buyer was Holborn Group, a relatively new development company with a young chief executive officer from Malaysia named Joo Kim Tiah.

Holborn outbid other developers and purchased the property for more than $330-million, to be mostly paid in increments, as the property was developed. The arrangement has meant that the taxpayer has been holding the property all these years for the developer, who’s watched his asset grow in value.

Mr. Tiah was out of the country and did not respond by deadline to a request for an interview for this story. In previous interviews, he has said the development has been hampered by delays due to the controversy and extensive consultation with the public and the city. However, he said has every intention to build.

“People always paint developers as evil,” he said. “I am here for the long term, and I want to build a good brand. I sympathize with the situation. It’s a win-win for everybody.”

He would not discuss the deal with the province, calling it “confidential.”..

....“I think the kinds of negotiations that are happening have changed,” she <Councillor Christine Boyle> says. “There will be pressure from council in whatever the proposal is, to make sure that there is real affordability built into that. Hopefully we see that, and if not, I think it will be a tough negotiation.”..

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-est...ancouvers-derelict-little-mountain-site/

[cov]

the city needs a hoarding clause that subjects vacant sites to additional taxation that doubles every year if a site is vacant for longer than 5 years or something. The little mountain situation can be easily avoided.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by cov

the city needs a hoarding clause that subjects vacant sites to additional taxation that doubles every year if a site is vacant for longer than 5 years or something. The little mountain situation can be easily avoided.

or we shouldn't sell 50yr old social housing for a cash payment while making a terrible contract.

people shouldn't be punished for doing what they choose with their land; but people should be bound by contracts and it is the governments fault for not seeing that.

i believe 100% if someone wants to leave their land vacant, that is their right and their choice and shouldn't be punished for that. this is solely on the government for bumbling this. but what do you expect from politicians.

[cov]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

or we shouldn't sell 50yr old social housing for a cash payment while making a terrible contract.

people shouldn't be punished for doing what they choose with their land; but people should be bound by contracts and it is the governments fault for not seeing that.

i believe 100% if someone wants to leave their land vacant, that is their right and their choice and shouldn't be punished for that. this is solely on the government for bumbling this. but what do you expect from politicians?

Leave land vacant wait for prices to appreciate runs contrary to present political mantras where properties shouldn't be a subject of pure speculation. But more importantly, vacant lots cause negative externalities for the surrounding neighborhoods. There are plenty of established legal cases already between the right to build vs neighborhood character/effects disputes. These are classic individual optimal vs collective optimal laws and Judicial powers clearly favors the latter. There are no better areas where the government should regulate more than cases like this.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cov

Leave land vacant wait for prices to appreciate runs contrary to present political mantras where properties shouldn't be a subject of pure speculation. But more importantly, vacant lots cause negative externalities for the surrounding neighborhoods. There are plenty of established legal cases already between the right to build vs neighborhood character/effects disputes. These are classic individual optimal vs collective optimal laws and Judicial powers clearly favors the latter. There are no better areas where the government should regulate more than cases like this.

Future's point is that with a better-written contract, speculation wouldn't have been possible. Even a simple "build it within X years, or else" would've helped.

[Tetsuo]

It's a lot worse in Burnaby, at least The city of Vancouver makes big developments have a social housing component to it, not the case with some of Burnaby's mega developments.

You have Southgate city, planned with zero social housing, only when LedMac offered to build a new 90unit replacement building for the 14th Avenue court BC Housing in addition to a new lowrise for seniors housing. Of course in return for being so charitable, they obtain the entire site (assessed at $60M to build some townhomes and lowrises)

I doubt the rest of the SouthGate City site will see LedMac building any more social housing...

@whatnext, should research this above and forward it to a reporter, I've heard some further shady stuff/land deals between the City of Burnaby, developers and BC housing...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by cov

Leave land vacant wait for prices to appreciate runs contrary to present political mantras where properties shouldn't be a subject of pure speculation. But more importantly, vacant lots cause negative externalities for the surrounding neighborhoods. There are plenty of established legal cases already between the right to build vs neighborhood character/effects disputes. These are classic individual optimal vs collective optimal laws and Judicial powers clearly favors the latter. There are no better areas where the government should regulate more than cases like this.

i will never believe that the government knows better what to do with my land then myself. nor will i ever trust a government to have my best interests at in mind.

the fact of the matter is that when it comes to freehold land, no one except the owner should have a say in if it remains empty or built upon. i do think that when it comes to building that it should be regulated, though, such as zoning, setbacks, etc.

but if i so choose to leave my land vacant, and it isn't an eye sore, the government should 🞵🞵🞵🞵-out of my property. this isn't China with a dictator government and no citizen rights.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i will never believe that the government knows better what to do with my land then myself. nor will i ever trust a government to have my best interests at in mind.

the fact of the matter is that when it comes to freehold land, no one except the owner should have a say in if it remains empty or built upon. i do think that when it comes to building that it should be regulated, though, such as zoning, setbacks, etc.

but if i so choose to leave my land vacant, and it isn't an eye sore, the government should 🞵🞵🞵🞵-out of my property. this isn't China with a dictator government and no citizen rights.

Is it really “your land” if you haven’t fully paid for it? Go back and read the article, the BC Lieberals signed a deal that basically has the taxpayer floating the developer, who hasn’t fully paid for the land and therefore has no urgency to move forward with developing the land.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is it really “your land” if you haven’t fully paid for it? Go back and read the article, the BC Lieberals signed a deal that basically has the taxpayer floating the developer, who hasn’t fully paid for the land and therefore has no urgency to move forward with developing the land.

so that goes back to my original point, if the government allowed them to do that by having a terrible contract, then that is the governments fault; not the developers.

you cant blame someone for getting a good deal when the other person is willing to be stupid. this is 100% the governments fault; plain and simple they signed a bad contract for what i am assuming are personal gains.

and that is why i will never trust the government in any form.

[s211]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i will never believe that the government knows better what to do with my land then myself. nor will i ever trust a government to have my best interests at in mind.

Which is the polar opposite of the attitude of self-proclaimed urbanists. They DO know better, and condescendingly so.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

or we shouldn't sell 50yr old social housing for a cash payment while making a terrible contract.

people shouldn't be punished for doing what they choose with their land; but people should be bound by contracts and it is the governments fault for not seeing that.

i believe 100% if someone wants to leave their land vacant, that is their right and their choice and shouldn't be punished for that. this is solely on the government for bumbling this. but what do you expect from politicians.

I don't think they wanted to leave the land vacant: they had all the intention to build. The company spent years wrestling with CoV on what they can or can't do. I don't think the Feds or CoV have clear directions on how they wanted the developer to proceed.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is it really “your land” if you haven’t fully paid for it? Go back and read the article, the BC Lieberals signed a deal that basically has the taxpayer floating the developer, who hasn’t fully paid for the land and therefore has no urgency to move forward with developing the land.

Choose a better government next time.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by cov

the city needs a hoarding clause that subjects vacant sites to additional taxation that doubles every year if a site is vacant for longer than 5 years or something. The little mountain situation can be easily avoided.

Does that also apply to vacant CoV lands meant for social housing across the city? They can refund this money to tax payers.

[officedweller]

East elevation view from Main Street of the market residential building planned for 5299 Main St. B+H Architects Inc.
https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/l...nt-starts-to-pick-up-the-pace-1.23619548


South elevation view from Main Street of the market residential building planned for 5299 Main St. B+H Architects Inc.
https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/l...nt-starts-to-pick-up-the-pace-1.23619548


East 36th Avenue — gateway rendering. B+H Architects Inc.
https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/l...nt-starts-to-pick-up-the-pace-1.23619548

Holborn Holdings Ltd.’s development application for an eight-storey, mixed-use, market residential building at 5299 Main St. on the Little Mountain site will be reviewed by the Urban Design Panel Feb. 6.

https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/l...nt-starts-to-pick-up-the-pace-1.23619548

[Feathered Friend]

2016 Rezoning Concept


2018 Development Application

UDP Praises The Heart of Little Mountain – Crafted by Nature, but Diminished by Vancouver’s Engineers
5299 Main Street
Even though it certainly deserves to be shared, recounting the tragic story of why this large area of Little Mountain has sat empty would take more time than sitting through an entire meeting of the Urban Design Panel. So, instead I’ll just recap their reaction to the first market housing proposed here.

The applicant was wise to bring a model that shows not only the new proposal, but the overall site plan, which includes two non-market housing projects that have already been approved. Plus, when the panel raised questions about the area’s total FSR allowance, they were able to demonstrate how the lands were broken into 3 quadrants, each with their own restrictions.

The design team believed their model also portrayed how the contrast between the two buildings created a gateway, but several panellists dismissed this notion. However, everyone appreciated how the three maple trees, the last vestiges of the old neighbourhood, were preserved and formed the design of the new building.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/03/01...but-diminished-by-vancouver-s-engineers/

[officedweller]

Looks great, but agreed that it's not a gateway.
A gateway usually has some semblance of symmetry.