Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Although the hospice might like to buy the lot, the owners aren't interested in selling it. Instead they're going to build a 12,000 square foot house.

Was anyone surprised at this?

And the fun thing was that the rentals that were going to be available were for 2-3 bedroom units, capable of housing families. Not single bedroom units. In that context, the expected rental prices were reasonable.

Now, you get NO new rentals in a city that's already fairly tight for rentals (especially for families), and the hospice, who wanted the land, is being told by the owners of the land, 'no, we're not selling to you, and we're building a giant mansion to live there, so screw you, you're not getting the land in our lifetime'.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The Greens and NPAs that voted against it probably knew and didn't care - no density in (their) backyards.

The problem is Swanson being under the impression that if she says no enough times, the developers will take pity on her and build a couple of co-ops at considerable loss. That's almost infuriatingly ridiculous.

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Greens and NPAs that voted against it probably knew and didn't care - no density in (their) backyards.

The problem is Swanson being under the impression that if she says no enough times, the developers will take pity on her and build a couple of co-ops at considerable loss.

The problem with Swanson that no one who votes for her or endorses her seems to understand is that she has a long track record of saying things that sound great only to do absolutely nothing when she has any responsibility, knowing that to disrupt the status quo would make her irrelevant.

See: being a poverty pimp for the DTES, her record as an "activist", and anything she's done as a councillor.

The one thing I'll give her credit for is she's very good at making herself sound like she gives a damn about low-income and working-class folks and working families in this city when her record shows the opposite. This week's decision was another example of that. "Not affordable enough" is just couched language indicating she will just keep moving the goalposts so she can keep saying no. Not every development needs to have rock-bottom rents. We need mid-tier rental stock too so that the people who can afford to pay more don't price people who can't out of what is available.

(And don't get me wrong, I'm not letting the other six no voters off the hook.)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by bluefox

(And don't get me wrong, I'm not letting the other six no voters off the hook.)

And we shouldn't be. Thing is, nobody's disappointed by a NIMBY because we're all expecting them to be a NIMBY. Saying you support affordable housing but then voting No because it's not affordable enough is an r/choosingbeggars story.

[GenWhy?]

What, no one on here is excited to see a new 12,00 sf home in Shaungessy?!

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

What, no one on here is excited to see a new 12,00 sf home in Shaungessy?!

Council managed to mess this one up badly, but I can never understand why anybody would want to build a fancy house on Granville which is basically a six lane highway.

They'd be better off selling to the hospice.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Council managed to mess this one up badly, but I can never understand why anybody would want to build a fancy house on Granville which is basically a six lane highway.

So's Oak, but it's getting developed too.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So's Oak, but it's getting developed too.

But not by means of building mansions on an extremely busy road. They'd be better off selling the lot and buying a lot in Southlands.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by bluefox

The problem with Swanson that no one who votes for her or endorses her seems to understand is that she has a long track record of saying things that sound great only to do absolutely nothing when she has any responsibility, knowing that to disrupt the status quo would make her irrelevant.

See: being a poverty pimp for the DTES, her record as an "activist", and anything she's done as a councillor.

The one thing I'll give her credit for is she's very good at making herself sound like she gives a damn about low-income and working-class folks and working families in this city when her record shows the opposite. This week's decision was another example of that. "Not affordable enough" is just couched language indicating she will just keep moving the goalposts so she can keep saying no. Not every development needs to have rock-bottom rents. We need mid-tier rental stock too so that the people who can afford to pay more don't price people who can't out of what is available.

(And don't get me wrong, I'm not letting the other six no voters off the hook.)

Also, add in Pete Fry to the mess of someone who doesn't know what they are doing. Check Twitter for this chain:

https://twitter.com/PtFry/status/1144697332866273280

Brandon Yan 甄念本
@CitizenYan
Replying to @fabulavancouver
What did @PtFry say?

Pete Fry
@PtFry
Replying to @CitizenYan and @fabulavancouver
YES, parking: 32 spots, massive excavation from PL to PL was my biggest issue w/ project for disruption to palliative care operations. Wiebe and I were prepared to amend to reduce but advised by staff don’t have authority to impose fundamental building alterations in RZ process

Vancouver Insider
@InsiderDoug
Replying to @PtFry @CitizenYan and @fabulavancouver
That’s absolutely not true. Either you misunderstood staff or your not telling the truth.

Pete Fry
@PtFry
Replying to @InsiderDoug @CitizenYan and @fabulavancouver
I generally don’t respond to trolls, especially anonymous accounts claiming “insider” authority - but since you’ve implied I’m either a liar or incompetent. Here from our *actual* staff

Vancouver Insider
@InsiderDoug
Replying to @PtFry @CitizenYan and @fabulavancouver
Reducing parking & modifying a setback is not a “fundamental change.” Council does it all the time. Changes get worked out at devt permit, which was mentioned many times I believe, even just in the portions I saw. I realize you’re new at this, but did you ask these specifically?

Pete Fry
@PtFry
Replying to @InsiderDoug @CitizenYan and @fabulavancouver
After extensive RZ public hearing, a substantive change to proposal would be out of order, b/c parking #'s (or whatever) is what people came out to speak to. I have legal's opinion on this, whereas you have internet opinion and anonymity.

kinda doubting *long time staffer* claim

Vancouver Insider
@InsiderDoug
Replying to @PtFry @CitizenYan and @fabulavancouver
Kinda doubt you had Legal’s opinion on a very specific Q like “how many parking #’s could Council remove or setback move before its considered a fundamental change?” And that’s actually a Q for planners, since they know what’s fundamental. A “long time staffer” knows that.

Frances Bula
@fabulavancouver
Replying to @InsiderDoug @PtFry and @CitizenYan
I, for one, would like to know what an applicant should do in a situation like this. Refuse to add parking? Poll individual councillors on how much it matters to them in a final decision? If I were planning a project at this point, I'd be stumped.

[GenWhy?]

Fry's out to lunch.

[rofina]

I loathe social media.

You can dismiss any questions/opinion you don't agree with by calling it trolling.

On the flip side, too many people troll on social media.

Its really the most disappointing creation of the internet age so far.

[Feathered Friend]

Lakeview Congregation Concerned Over Plans to Pave Over Paradise To Put In A Parking Ramp

2025 East 12th Avenue and 2776 Semlin Drive (Lakeview Multicultural United Church)
Darren and I are not trained architects, planners, or journalists, we are just a young couple who care deeply for our city. Sometimes this means we get things wrong, like when Darren predicted this proposed rebirth of the Lakeview Multicultural United Church would fail to meet its goal of starting construction next year. As the approval process alone often takes two years, normally he would be right, but, in this case, he lacked a key bit of information.

There was no way either of us could know this application was submitted under Vancouver’s SHORT Program. Designed to cut back red tape on projects guaranteeing a certain level of affordability, that policy shortens the usual development timeline by approximately 40 weeks. As roughly 30% of these 104 rental homes will be permanently secured at the Housing Income Limit rates set out by BC Housing, this mid-rise certainly qualifies as a SHORT one.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/07/03...-over-paradise-to-put-in-a-parking-ramp/

[Feathered Friend]

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1535grant/documents/renderings_000.pdf

Death By A Thousand Cuts – How Much More Can This Grandview Woodland Rental Building Endure?

1535-1557 Grant Street
Given the commotion over the rejection of 21 rental townhomes in Shaughnessy, it would be easy to assume this rarely happens. While it’s true our elected officials usually heed the advice and wisdom of our city’s non-partisan bureaucrats, many projects often die long before council even knows about them. The ones that make it to a public hearing have been thoroughly vetted to comply with policy, the demands of public consultation, and all sorts of red tape.

No proposal better demonstrates that than this simple mid-rise in the Grandview Woodland. When it was first made public back in 2017, it was a leader in sustainability, had its own unique look, and faced strong opposition in an area that has been zoned for 4 storey strata buildings for decades. Despite that, these blocks largely remain as single family homes, which is why the citizens assembly called for the community plan to incentivize rental buildings by allowing them to reach 6 floors in height...

....Submitted in March 2019, this fourth version clearly struggles to comply with the demands of city policy and the Urban Design Panel. The 6th floor has now been eliminated, taking with it almost all of the outdoor amenity space. That’s because, in order to save the most housing possible, the 5th floor has become more bulky, although 3 more homes were still lost in the process.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/07/05...andview-woodland-rental-building-endure/

[Feathered Friend]

Orange Is The New Green – A Promise to Bring Vancouver Renters Closer Together

1425 East 12th Avenue and 1451 East 12th Avenue
With the dire shortage of low income senior’s housing in Vancouver, this is one project we would expect to receive wide acclaim. After all, despite a recent re-branding, Brightside Community Homes Foundation has been looking after our city’s most vulnerable residents for almost 70 years. Admittedly, neither Hannah nor I are sure why they updated their name, but a simple truth is that nothing lasts forever, as all things in life eventually change.

Which is why the only thing surprising about their recent announcement to update five of their existing properties is that they have the resources available to do it. Unfortunately this is largely self-financed , as funding from senior levels of government has been lacking for decades. This means that, despite their best efforts to care for these homes, they no longer feel appropriate for today’s demands.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/07/16...bring-vancouver-renters-closer-together/

[Feathered Friend]

Broadway Residents Left Confused And Angry Over Vancouver City Council’s Perceived Betrayal

2542 Garden Drive – DP-2019-00395
There are a few venues in Vancouver that seem to be hotspots for open house events. I am not sure which one Darren and I have been in most, but it is likely either the recently demolished Empire Landmark Hotel, the Pretez Centre, or the Croatian Culture Centre. That said, it seems every time an event takes place at the later location I end up travelling to it alone, and this time was no exception.

Granted, attending a consultation event for a 6 storey mid-rise development application feels a little senseless. However, that ignores this application’s contentious open house and strange public hearing. Despite only a few individuals voicing opposition, city council spent a lot of time debating this project’s rezoning. It was only approved after Councilllor Carr put forward an amendment to minimize the appearance of the top floors during the development permit stage.

Her passion makes sense, as, in 2016, she alone voted against the Grandview Woodland Community Plan that allows for this proposal.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/07/19...couver-city-councils-perceived-betrayal/

[officedweller]

So the result of the public consultation was to make the building uglier before it was passed?

[osirisboy]

And why do they insist on having the top two floors a different colour? It makes it stick out and more obtrusive. It looks awful.

[LeftCoaster]

It's such a regrettable trend. the setback is bad enough, but making it another colour/material just looks awful IMO.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/07/19...couver-city-councils-perceived-betrayal/

As much as I enjoy the work you guys do, the news you report is so infuriating, sometimes I find it hard to read.

I'm so conflicted with the future of this City, and this development captures that sentiment.

This is a 6 story, low rise development that one might figure would be a nothing burger.

I'm torn - a part of me wants to say something like this shouldn't even need a hearing or rezoning or anything. Its small, its at scale, it should be a fast tracked with little consultation and built.

On the flip side I generally have a dislike for government sticking its nose into everything and dictating what things should be. This is a perfect example - the proponent was asked to amend the top floors, only to face criticism when the changes were made to reflect original comments. This is simply a ridiculously inefficient and wasteful way of administering things.

It a tough balance to strike between delivering what the neighbourhood wants and the "greater good."

[Feathered Friend]

Urban Design Panel Criticizes City Staff For Allowing Only A Tiny Change In An Island Of Nothing

2603-2655 Renfrew Street and 2543-2583 Renfrew Street & 2895 East 10th Avenue
Despite having followed Vancouver’s urban growth for the last couple years, there are still a few things that continue to puzzle Hannah and me. Perhaps the biggest of these is why, in the midst of our city’s housing crisis, neither senior city staff or our elected officials have cut back on one of the biggest causes of delay, the Urban Design Panel. These volunteers certainly have a role to play, but even they are growing frustrated with their current mandate.

After all, one can only examine so many similar looking 6 floors mid-rises before becoming a bit jaded. As we said before, these buildings are essentially the modern day equivalent of the Vancouver Special. So, it wasn’t a surprise when the open house for these two applications under the Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program failed To draw any interest from the community neighbouring Renfrew Station. Yet this review proved far more interesting, and stressful, for city staff.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/07/26...y-a-tiny-change-in-an-island-of-nothing/