General Vancouver Updates

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Here's a look at the ongoing excavation at the SW corner of Cambie & Broadway.

May 15 '19, my pics

Pics today looking in from the sidewalk along Broadway.



July 4 '19, my pics

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

June 5 '19, my pics

fullsizeoutput_80f0 by mcminsen, on Flickr

July 4 '19, my pic

[WarrenC12]

I walk by Cambie and Broadway a lot. It took a long time to get to this level, looked like they had to break up some big boulders and hammer through some bedrock perhaps.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Any tenants known yet for Rize?

Nothing announced so far. I've heard rumours it will be a financial institution taking a decent chunk of space to kick it off though.

Originally Posted by SpongeG

13-storey apartment tower slated for Kingsway RONA site


Cressey has filed a development application for a mixed-use building at Kingsway and Dumfries Street, on the site of a former RONA store.

The new building will have 154 units, including townhouses along Fleming St. and Dumfries St. It includes a six-storey podium with a 13-storey tower. It appears to be rental, although it’s not clear in the development application.

...

https://urbanyvr.com/13-storey-apartment-tower-slated-for-kingsway-rona-site

Glad to see this one pushing forward given the history of their last proposal.

Originally Posted by mcminsen

July 4 '19, my pics

Word is the City will be taking most/all of this space.

[SFUVancouver]

I am really pleased to see infill office buildings like the one at 8th and Cambie come to fruition. These are sites that were left out of previous adjacent land assemblies and yet, thanks to the demand for office today and some greater flexibility in parking relaxations, we are getting an, arguably, better neigbourhood thanks to a greater diversity of uses and a finer grained scale of development. For prime sites like Cambie and Broadway, a more substantial office tower should have been supported by Council and staff, but I am optimistic that the building will be a good addition to the neighbourhood and will likely function as a seamless addition to the City Hall Campus precinct.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

For prime sites like Cambie and Broadway, a more substantial office tower should hav e been supported by Council and staff, but I am optimistic that the building will be a good addition to the neighbourhood...

It’s more than “prime.” It’s the gateway into Vancouver’s second-most vital commercial centre and the busiest bus transportation corridor in North America, the current site of an existing subway station, and future site of one of the busiest rapid rail transit hubs in the entire city. The economic importance of this intersection to Vancouver is difficult to overstate.

Are you sure that a seven-story building at such a strategic node (the consequence of negligent city policy, no doubt) constitutes a “good addition” to the neighbourhood, if it ends up posing, for a generation or two to come, a barrier to a more robust development, which could bring substantially greater benefit and utility to Vancouver, assuming council acts more responsibly in the near future?

[GenWhy?]

The site is under 9,200 sf. It's quite small. The City will live on.

We're simply waiting and having preliminary conversation with the City on getting what we want in the area.. which is more office and hotel space.

When there's profit there's action. Some people wait others go ahead and are happy.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Some people wait others go ahead and are happy.

Exactly. Not every landowner can wait endlessly for council to implement a responsible plan for the city. And the city does live on, just not in as functional and beneficial a form as it could (and should) have.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The site is under 9,200 sf. It's quite small. The City will live on.

We're simply waiting and having preliminary conversation with the City on getting what we want in the area.. which is more office and hotel space.

When there's profit there's action. Some people wait others go ahead and are happy.

The lot size shouldn't dictate much of anything.

This hardly relevant sliver between buildings now has a 1500 foot tower on it.
The lot size is just over 6000 square feet.





That's not my suggestion for the corner of Broadway and Cambie, but I think we could do better than a stubby little thing being built.

Its a shame the City is completely unable to develop a neighbourhood plan and stick with it without endless need for debate and spot rezoning.

[TheTerminalCity]

Originally Posted by rofina

Its a shame the City is completely unable to develop a neighbourhood plan and stick with it without endless need for debate and spot rezoning.

The City has tons of neighbourhood plans, be they more recent like Cambie or Grandview-Woodland, or earlier vintages like the Community Visions that 'allow consideration of duplexes' in the single-family neighbourhoods in Vancouver.

In some ways, sticking to these plans is more of the problem that comes up on this forum as the plans themselves seem to be what stirs the pot in terms of density, height, affordability, etc. (or lack thereof). The spot rezonings you describe typically follow from those plans too as seen on Cambie, the West End, etc.

Admittedly there are some rezoning exceptions and the question of whether the projects that come forward under City rental policies are or are not spot rezoning seems to be a matter of individual interpretation in this city.

I very much agree with the idea that our plans in Vancouver should show more boldness and be less deferential to the "Vancouver was perfect when I moved here in 1972" crowd.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by TheTerminalCity

The City has tons of neighbourhood plans, be they more recent like Cambie or Grandview-Woodland, or earlier vintages like the Community Visions that 'allow consideration of duplexes' in the single-family neighbourhoods in Vancouver.

In some ways, sticking to these plans is more of the problem that comes up on this forum as the plans themselves seem to be what stirs the pot in terms of density, height, affordability, etc. (or lack thereof). The spot rezonings you describe typically follow from those plans too as seen on Cambie, the West End, etc.

Admittedly there are some rezoning exceptions and the question of whether the projects that come forward under City rental policies are or are not spot rezoning seems to be a matter of individual interpretation in this city.

I very much agree with the idea that our plans in Vancouver should show more boldness and be less deferential to the "Vancouver was perfect when I moved here in 1972" crowd.

I agree. I am also aware of neighbourhood plans.

I particularly had the West End plan in mind when I typed that. A plan that took 3 years and millions of dollars to develop, only to be subject to endless policy debate.

The idea behind these neighbourhood plans is that they should provide near "fool proof" planning clarity for the area. If a the plan allows for 50 stories on the lot, and a proposal comes in at 50 stories. Pass it. On the spot.

There is entirely too much pontificating at City Hall, too much do good, too much trying to please everyone, too much rule by outrage.

Leadership doesn't need to be pretty or popular, but it does need to lead. Develop neighbourhood plans. Once set, let developers loose and just stamp "approved."

[idunno]

Are people suggesting that the West End has somehow had 'trouble' growing since the West End Plan was approved?

Growth has outpaced the plan. The number of rezoning and development applications for towers along lower Davie, Burrard/Thurlow, and especially Robson/Alberni has been astounding. No, not every neighbourhood is prezoned, making it 'easy' for developers to submit new developments, but if they were, then negotiating public benefits would be more difficult.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

I agree. I am also aware of neighbourhood plans.

I particularly had the West End plan in mind when I typed that. A plan that took 3 years and millions of dollars to develop, only to be subject to endless policy debate.

The idea behind these neighbourhood plans is that they should provide near "fool proof" planning clarity for the area. If a the plan allows for 50 stories on the lot, and a proposal comes in at 50 stories. Pass it. On the spot.

There is entirely too much pontificating at City Hall, too much do good, too much trying to please everyone, too much rule by outrage.

Leadership doesn't need to be pretty or popular, but it does need to lead. Develop neighbourhood plans. Once set, let developers loose and just stamp "approved."

On the leadership question - Jean Swanson is taking a lead on Council. It's just that the lead she's taking doesn't line up with your (or most people's) opinion of what we need to see developed. Having elected representatives sometimes gets in the way of initiatives, and sometimes it promotes them. It's not necessarily straightforward. That's the system we have, and given the outcome of the last election, and the mix of councilors Vancouver got (and the debates that now occur on Council) there's not necessarily a consensus about what should be built, and it isn't going to be as simple as you'd like.

Unlike the West End Plan, which is simple to read and ought to be easy to understand, but apparently isn't. It never says 'a 50 storey tower can be built on this lot, subject to rezoning'. It says, 'a 500 foot building can be built here, subject to other City Policies, including viewcones and shadowing of parks'. There's no hidden agenda, it's not difficult to calculate how much a particular site can accommodate, and most projects fit in from the point of their application. It's pretty safe to assume that any that didn't and submitted something taller than policy allowed, were informed about the potential problem before they submitted, and chose to apply anyway. Maybe they thought that their design was so amazing that the policy would mysteriously disappear for them.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

On the leadership question - Jean Swanson is taking a lead on Council. It's just that the lead she's taking doesn't line up with your (or most people's) opinion of what we need to see developed. Having elected representatives sometimes gets in the way of initiatives, and sometimes it promotes them. It's not necessarily straightforward. That's the system we have, and given the outcome of the last election, and the mix of councilors Vancouver got (and the debates that now occur on Council) there's not necessarily a consensus about what should be built, and it isn't going to be as simple as you'd like.

Unlike the West End Plan, which is simple to read and ought to be easy to understand, but apparently isn't. It never says 'a 50 storey tower can be built on this lot, subject to rezoning'. It says, 'a 500 foot building can be built here, subject to other City Policies, including viewcones and shadowing of parks'. There's no hidden agenda, it's not difficult to calculate how much a particular site can accommodate, and most projects fit in from the point of their application. It's pretty safe to assume that any that didn't and submitted something taller than policy allowed, were informed about the potential problem before they submitted, and chose to apply anyway. Maybe they thought that their design was so amazing that the policy would mysteriously disappear for them.

All fair and valid. Points taken.

I'm just generally tired of there needing to be a debate about everything these days. I can't help but feel like it wasn't always this way.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

... It says, 'a 500 foot building can be built here, subject to other City Policies, including viewcones and shadowing of parks'...

The problem arises when the conditions have the effect of gutting the general permission, as the view cone guidelines do to much of the area governed by the Higher Buildings Policy. In that case, the the general permission is just paying lip service or is a publicity exercise because it wont be realized over much of the area.

Instead of saying "you can build up to 500ft subject to..." it should, for clarity, say you can build up to the lesser of: the maximum height allowed by the view cones and other City Policies, or 500 ft.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

All fair and valid. Points taken.

I'm just generally tired of there needing to be a debate about everything these days. I can't help but feel like it wasn't always this way.

I think you're right. It may be because there's a new(ish) Council, but it's also probably related to the fact that there's no one party with a majority, and that neither the NPA or the Greens agree with each other on a consistent basis, so on Council there are disparate voices and no predictable consensus. In the wider debate within the city, from what I read in Feathered Friend's posts, even a recently approved plan is no guarantee that there won't be people expressing strong opposition to projects that meet approved policy. Whether that's because they ignored the opportunity to get involved with the plan, or they never agreed with the policy, or they've arrived in the area more recently isn't clear - probably some of each.

That's not new though, early rezonings after the Cambie Plan, and other plans approved a few years ago still had community members lining up to object to projects that met all the plan policies. It's only more recently that Cambie schemes get approved without a long hearing. Whether the next wave of taller towers under Phase 3 have a harder time will be interesting to watch

One other possible factor is falling house prices. This is just a theory, but as owners see theor equity decreasing, any project that they perceive as potentially reducing it even more (however illogically) is opposed more than when values are generally rising.

[Feathered Friend]

July 9th, 2019 Public Hearing – Transformative Rental Homes Could Face A Federal Challenger As Remote Controlled Robots Shield Vancouver’s Children

July 9th, 2019 Public Hearing
Some may have been shocked last month when we accurately predicted that the majority of Vancouver City Council would vote against allowing 21 rental homes into Shaughnessy. However, given their voting records and rhetoric, we expected that Councillor Fry, Hardwick, and Swanson would find some reason to vote no. Combined with Councillor Bligh and Kirby-Young’s vote against even allowing the public to speak on the issue (pg 19), it seemed obvious these homes were doomed.

Now, we’re going to make another bold prediction, which is that a NDP Member of Parliament will come out to speak against adding 121 rental homes to Fraser Street. That might seem like a risky move given the upcoming federal election, but a community meeting late last year revealed that one member of parlament shares a concern over these changes to the neighbourhood’s character.

Certainly the other items will not evoke any similar response, as townhome proposals along the Cambie Corridor usually fail to illicit any reaction, and its hard to argue against increasing job space Downtown.

Backlash Expectations

Item # 4 – 1166 West Pender Street – Low
Concerns over construction impacts on the neighbours have largely been addressed.

Item #5 – 686 East 22nd Avenue, 3811-3833 Fraser Street & 679 East 23rd Avenue – Moderate
While much of Fraser Street is eager for new growth, this area had mixed feelings.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/07/08...olled-robots-shield-vancouvers-children/

[whatnext]

Well, here's something you don't hear of much in Vancouver, a homeowner seekign strengthened protection for their heritage home. Of course, it is Pat McGeer, who was pretty notorious in his political heyday. Interesting that it has to go to a public hearing.

Scientists Pat and Edith McGeer seek designation of Vancouver home as protected heritage property

Renowned neuroscientists Pat and Edith McGeer have lived in their West Point Grey home since 1960.

The house was built in 1912-1913, and is listed in the Vancouver Heritage Register as an A category, meaning it’s of primary significance.

However, getting listed in the register does not protect a property from alterations and demolition.

The McGeers don’t want any of that happening to their home, and so they have asked the City of Vancouver to designate their 4727 West 2nd Avenue property as a protected heritage property.

The proposed designation covers the exterior of the home...

..The proposed heritage designation is scheduled to go to a public hearing on Tuesday (July 9)..

https://www.straight.com/news/1263946/sc...nation-vancouver-home-protected-heritage

[officedweller]

7th & Fir

From Changing City updates:


https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/2019/07/10/1616-west-7th-avenue/

[rofina]

Originally Posted by officedweller

7th & Fir

From Changing City updates:


https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/2019/07/10/1616-west-7th-avenue/

Nice! Love that scale.