General Vancouver Updates

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

I can't remember seeing anything about this mentioned on here last year, needs a bit of colour but looks neat.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/130-west-broadway-vancouver-mec-redevelopment

Those were posted a couple years ago.
Hopefully the design has changed since then.

Reminds me of the first iteration of 1166 West Pender, with awkwardly fitting trapezoidal windows.

[SpongeG]

Boutique condominiums proposed for Kerrisdale corner
MARCH 14, 2019 BY PETER MEISZNER

A four-storey boutique condominium building is proposed for the corner of East Boulevard and West 44th Avenue in Kerrisdale.

The new building will include nine retail units along East Boulevard, and 38 units on levels two through four.

In addition, there will be nine townhouses facing the lane.

The new building will replace three separate walkup apartment buildings.

Laneside view

Credit: Office of McFarlane Biggar Architects + Designers Inc.

...

https://urbanyvr.com/6020-east-boulevard

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Boutique condominiums proposed for Kerrisdale corner
MARCH 14, 2019 BY PETER MEISZNER

A four-storey boutique condominium building is proposed for the corner of East Boulevard and West 44th Avenue in Kerrisdale.

The new building will include nine retail units along East Boulevard, and 38 units on levels two through four.

In addition, there will be nine townhouses facing the lane.

The new building will replace three separate walkup apartment buildings.

Laneside view

Credit: Office of McFarlane Biggar Architects + Designers Inc.

...

https://urbanyvr.com/6020-east-boulevard

There goes 3 more affordable apartment buildings, all of which have had updates including new windows recently. To top it off, the existing 3 affordable buildings have 42 units to be replaced by 38 high end units. Net loss of 4 housing units, what a waste.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

There goes 3 more affordable apartment buildings, all of which have had updates including new windows recently. To top it off, the existing 3 affordable buildings have 42 units to be replaced by 38 high end units. Net loss of 4 housing units, what a waste.

6020 and 6040 were both co-ops, so the owners aren't exactly displaced.

I didn't realize 6060, was part of the proposal. It hurts to see people evicted, but judging by the assessment, $13 Mil for the land and only $42k for the building, it must be in terrible condition.

The total loss of housing stinks too, though it could be a case of studios / 1 bedrooms being replaced by larger family sized homes.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

6020 and 6040 were both co-ops, so the owners aren't exactly displaced.

I didn't realize 6060, was part of the proposal. It hurts to see people evicted, but judging by the assessment, $13 Mil for the land and only $42k for the building, it must be in terrible condition.

The total loss of housing stinks too, though it could be a case of studios / 1 bedrooms being replaced by larger family sized homes.

Yeah, it's still unfortunate, typical for that neighborhood to be fine with it though. They get all unnecessarily hostile with you at these open houses with any added units yet are complacent when there's a loss of housing in the area. I thought there was a policy that all units had to be replaced or is it different because some were co-ops and it doesn't apply?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Yeah, it's still unfortunate, typical for that neighborhood to be fine with it though. They get all unnecessarily hostile with you at these open houses with any added units yet are complacent when there's a loss of housing in the area. I thought there was a policy that all units had to be replaced or is it different because some were co-ops and it doesn't apply?

No, it's the zoning. Almost all rental housing is in 'RM' type zones, and those are protected. There are a few rental building in 'C' zones, and those aren't covered by the same policy, and can be redeveloped as condos.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

6020 and 6040 were both co-ops, so the owners aren't exactly displaced.

I didn't realize 6060, was part of the proposal. It hurts to see people evicted, but judging by the assessment, $13 Mil for the land and only $42k for the building, it must be in terrible condition.

The total loss of housing stinks too, though it could be a case of studios / 1 bedrooms being replaced by larger family sized homes.

The new building has 54,417 sq ft of residential space, and about 5,000 of common area (so 59,500 of total residential space). The three existing buildings had 43,200 sq ft of space, so there is more residential space being built (as well as new commercial space at grade).

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The new building has 54,417 sq ft of residential space, and about 5,000 of common area (so 59,500 of total residential space). The three existing buildings had 43,200 sq ft of space, so there is more residential space being built (as well as new commercial space at grade).

More residential square footage doesn't equate to more residents though. Many single family homes in this city have one or two people living in them and are the size of small apartment buildings yet there's often couples that live in bachelor suites in buildings like what are being redeveloped. I'm also quite skeptical of the retail units being taken immediately as that sector of high end new retail spaces off main streets is not panning out.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

More residential square footage doesn't equate to more residents though. Many single family homes in this city have one or two people living in them and are the size of small apartment buildings yet there's often couples that live in bachelor suites in buildings like what are being redeveloped. I'm also quite skeptical of the retail units being taken immediately as that sector of high end new retail spaces off main streets is not panning out.

No, although as the unit count is pretty much the same, and there's more residential area, I wouldn't expect fewer residents than are there now. The no doubt expensive, larger apartments are presumably aimed at potential local house owners who want to stay in the neighbourhood and sell their house. (That would, in theory, free up a house to be occupied by a family). Who knows if that's actually what happens, or whether it's wealthier new residents to the city, or the area. It's not densification, just replacement of older, poorer built 1950s housing.

I agree about the retail - maybe we'll see some interest in the area with a critical mass of new development, but I'm not sure that area is short of dental offices or nail spas.

[officedweller]

From Porte twitter March 21st:


https://twitter.com/portegroup

Originally Posted by officedweller

Light industrial/office building by Porte Group in East Vancouver:

The George


https://twitter.com/portegroup

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Boutique condominiums proposed for Kerrisdale corner
MARCH 14, 2019 BY PETER MEISZNER

A four-storey boutique condominium building is proposed for the corner of East Boulevard and West 44th Avenue in Kerrisdale.

The new building will include nine retail units along East Boulevard, and 38 units on levels two through four.

In addition, there will be nine townhouses facing the lane.

The new building will replace three separate walkup apartment buildings.

Laneside view

Credit: Office of McFarlane Biggar Architects + Designers Inc.

...

https://urbanyvr.com/6020-east-boulevard

Not a lot of density added to the area, considering what this replaces are three 3-storey walkups. I like the Scandinavian style minimalist design though: modern, clean and best of all, has retail spaces.

[jollyburger]

Was just looking at the old Anthem purchase of the Holiday Inn and noticed they also bought 1545 West 3rd (Culinary Capers) and they're planning a five storey office strata.

https://issuu.com/anthemproperties/docs/anthem_newsletter_spring2018

[LeftCoaster]

Doubt it stays that small once the Broadway plan is complete.

One very interesting thing I noticed in the Anthem newsletter is they list 137 Keefer as one of their sites. I guess they've taken it over/bought it from their development partner Beedie out at Station Square.

I bet Anthem can get something through here, hopefully bigger than what Beedie had proposed, just to stick it to Queen of the NIMBYs Melody Ma.

[Feathered Friend]

Unfortunately, 137 Keefer is a different project. It was approved back in 2017. I would love to see something nice happen to/with 105.

https://development.vancouver.ca/137keefer/index.htm

[LeftCoaster]

Haha whoops.

I read keefer and empty lot and rushed to conclusions.

That's what I get for not doing my homework.

[Feathered Friend]

It happens to the best of us Plus it's hard to think of anything on that street without being reminded of that drawn out mess.

[Feathered Friend]

Here's the motion to essentially kill the Rental 100 program. Submitted by Councillor Swanson.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
A. THAT Council direct staff to include in their Winter 2019 report back on
Rental 100 and related matters:
i. How to use rental only zoning to incentivize rental construction
that truly meets the needs of low and middle income renters; and ii. How to stop incentivizing demovictions by excluding from incentive programs new rentals that demolish existing affordable rentals.
B. THAT current applicants to the Rental 100 program and those who inquire about it be alerted to the current Rental Incentive Review underway and “Changing Vancouver’s Housing By-laws, Policies and Budgets to Achieve Real Housing Affordability” motion passed February 26, 2019 in order to reduce the possibility of incurring unintended harm during this time of transition with a newly elected City Council.
C. THAT Council instruct the Director of Legal Services to bring forward for
enactment an amendment to the Vancouver Development Cost Levy By-law and the Area Specific Development Cost Levy By-law that would suspend, as soon as possible, the development cost levy waiver for for-profit rental housing until a thorough review of the Rental 100 program can be undertaken.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20190402/documents/motionb6.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

Great idea: kill the only program currently in place to create affordable rentals, and replace it with... what, exactly?

[jlousa]

I'm not too sad to see it killed, both it and STIR were way to generous and were being subsidized by all taxpayers. Would've liked them to have it done with a density bonusing instead but with CACs and DCLs still payable.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm not too sad to see it killed, both it and STIR were way to generous and were being subsidized by all taxpayers. Would've liked them to have it done with a density bonusing instead but with CACs and DCLs still payable.

They do give a density bonus but it's not enough, and while more would be nice to off-set the elimination or decrease of DCL's being waiver for secured rental, it is not in the dialogue presented by those who want it eliminated. The councillors that want it gone talk of reduced permitting times for Development Permits only.

When you save a couple hundred thousand on a project a developer needs 2 extra floors of units to make up for it. Even under Rental 100 those extra floors and units were not guaranteed or barely enough and the rezoning process nearly killed or did kill a few projects. As the Mayor said, tweaking it is a good idea, but killing a program that is only a few years old and only now showing its success, has brought thousands of units online and is the only current real rental incentive program in the City is crazy. Objectively crazy.