Downtown Vancouver Updates

[officedweller]

I don't mind the Apple expansion.
It's very much like the London Drugs relationship to the corner of Granville & Georgia, which functions very well as a public gathering spot.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

They were both approved...

The most current one that got approved. The one that looks like a big ugly bus shelter. Besides the aesthetics. It's just one retail unit. Wasted opportunity

Also, how many public gathering spots do we need in that area? There is a huge public gathering spot right across the street.

[jollyburger]

Yeah that space just screams 15 unit retail unit with better architecture. Such a shame, I cry for you.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

June 26 '19, my pic

And another two floors.



July 22 '19, my pic

[ranvancan]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I don't mind the Apple expansion.
It's very much like the London Drugs relationship to the corner of Granville & Georgia, which functions very well as a public gathering spot.

Ya, for beggars, urinators and a messy hot dog cart where people slop their condiments.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Well it doesn't look worse than the Apple Store proposal that everyone seems to love for some reason

I hate that one with a passion.

[Changing City]

Council are voting today to approve the appointment of Henriquez Partners to design a 10 storey mixed use building for the Broughton lot (currently a temporary parking lot for the Henriquez designed Community Centre). The project "includes an elementary school for the Vancouver Board of Education and a child care facility and non-market housing for the City of Vancouver. The delivery of the building has schedule constraints and it is intended that the project receive an Occupancy Permit by the end of 2023." [source]

[osirisboy]

Non market housing and a school on that site is appalling. Where ar the housing advocates outcries?!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Non market housing and a school on that site is appalling. Where ar the housing advocates outcries?!

Where else would you put a school in Coal Harbour? It's been reserved for that site for 20 years - but funding was never available. Now the BC Hydro deal on Nelson Park makes it possible. This is, unless you know differently, the last undeveloped site in the area, and the plan has always reserved it for this use.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Council are voting today to approve the appointment of Henriquez Partners to design a 10 storey mixed use building for the Broughton lot (currently a temporary parking lot for the Henriquez designed Community Centre). The project "includes an elementary school for the Vancouver Board of Education and a child care facility and non-market housing for the City of Vancouver. The delivery of the building has schedule constraints and it is intended that the project receive an Occupancy Permit by the end of 2023." [source]

Interesting news, thanks. I wonder where this site is on the province and VSB radar for demand. I know it was always in the plans, but I'm not sure there's a ton of young families in that area demanding a school. Compared to say, Olympic Village.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Non market housing and a school on that site is appalling. Where ar the housing advocates outcries?!

A school on that site has been on the books for nearly 30 years. Here's the ODP bylaw: https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/odp/ch.pdf dated Nov 6 1990. Where's the outcry that it's taken more than a generation to finally deliver an elementary school to this neighbourhood?

As for including non-market housing on-site, that is still housing and has been part of the ODP all along, too. Coal Harbour ODP 2.2.7 Plan For All Age Groups and Incomes specifically notes in (b) that Parks, school, day care, and other community facilities needs should be provided; and (d) says Accommodation suitable for all age groups and income levels should be provided.

What exactly is your issue with this?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Interesting news, thanks. I wonder where this site is on the province and VSB radar for demand. I know it was always in the plans, but I'm not sure there's a ton of young families in that area demanding a school. Compared to say, Olympic Village.

There have been some families with children in that area for several years because the City-owned C-side rental tower has non-market family housing in the base. I think the reason for moving fast, now, is that they will be using it for the kids being temporarily relocated from Lord Roberts Annex, which is being replaced on top of the new BC Hydro underground substation - which is going to take several years to build. The Province don't have to pay for this school, so their priority list isn't an issue. I think VSB have been trying to find a way to build here for many years, but until recently the Province weren't letting them build any new schools while there were empty spaces in existing schools elsewhere in the city. That changed under the NDP government, but the priority seems to be the seismic replacements of existing schools over adding new ones. That seems like a reasonable decision, but at some point presumably there will be so many kids in the SEFC area that they'll have to build the proposed school. The Downtown schools have been close to, or over capacity for a while, and with all the new family-sized housing now mandated by the city, there's certainly the potential for continued demand.

[SFUVancouver]

I lived in Coal Harbour for the last few years of high school (commuted daily by transit to University Hill at UBC, incidentally) but we had neighbours whose elementary school-aged kids had to go all over. Most went to Lord Roberts in the West End, which was fairly close by, but that was not a sure thing due to overcrowding (at the time) and others had to go to Elsie Roy in Yaletown or Strathcona Elementary. Back then (and still?) there was no busing program for kids forced to go outside their catchment area because of overcrowding, so it was up to families to figure it out. An elementary school in Coal Harbour would have been ideal and I seem to recall that there was some acrimony that the school was "promised" as part of the Coal Harbour redevelopment but never delivered.

[Prometheus]

How much money could the city raise if it zoned the site for a tall tower and sold it to the highest bidder?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There have been some families with children in that area for several years because the City-owned C-side rental tower has non-market family housing in the base. I think the reason for moving fast, now, is that they will be using it for the kids being temporarily relocated from Lord Roberts Annex, which is being replaced on top of the new BC Hydro underground substation - which is going to take several years to build. The Province don't have to pay for this school, so their priority list isn't an issue. I think VSB have been trying to find a way to build here for many years, but until recently the Province weren't letting them build any new schools while there were empty spaces in existing schools elsewhere in the city. That changed under the NDP government, but the priority seems to be the seismic replacements of existing schools over adding new ones. That seems like a reasonable decision, but at some point presumably there will be so many kids in the SEFC area that they'll have to build the proposed school. The Downtown schools have been close to, or over capacity for a while, and with all the new family-sized housing now mandated by the city, there's certainly the potential for continued demand.

The relocation from Lord Roberts Annex makes a lot of sense. Every time there is a seismic upgrade, it can be a big upheaval for the kids at that school as they get bused elsewhere for a long time, unless the replacement can be built on site, like the proposal for Eric Hamber and others.

I thought the province was always involved in the funding mix? There was a showdown/delay between the VSB and BC Liberals around Crosstown elementary. I don't even recall what the final result was, other than the fact that it's now built.

As for SEFC, yes that area is already far, far overcrowded. I recently experienced this with my son. Most schools have 2 K classes per year (40 kids). His school had about 110 in-catchment kids trying to get into 40 slots, which were down to 13 after siblings were accounted for. It's insane.

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/05/11/...ding-school-be-built-in-olympic-village/

Parents are organizing and getting some attention:

https://sites.google.com/view/olympic-village-school/home

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There have been some families with children in that area for several years because the City-owned C-side rental tower has non-market family housing in the base. I think the reason for moving fast, now, is that they will be using it for the kids being temporarily relocated from Lord Roberts Annex, which is being replaced on top of the new BC Hydro underground substation - which is going to take several years to build. The Province don't have to pay for this school, so their priority list isn't an issue. I think VSB have been trying to find a way to build here for many years, but until recently the Province weren't letting them build any new schools while there were empty spaces in existing schools elsewhere in the city. That changed under the NDP government, but the priority seems to be the seismic replacements of existing schools over adding new ones. That seems like a reasonable decision, but at some point presumably there will be so many kids in the SEFC area that they'll have to build the proposed school. The Downtown schools have been close to, or over capacity for a while, and with all the new family-sized housing now mandated by the city, there's certainly the potential for continued demand.

I wonder why the province/vsb does not look at a building that has housing for families above a school at street level? Or for that case community centres with housing above the actual centre... Schools and community centres are very quite and all when school is not in session and or the centre is closed. Even if the housing is dedicated to single mothers with children alone this would ease the pressure off other housing supply for other categories of people. I hope they do build that school in SEFC cause there are a lot of mothers with young kids in the are and I imagine that's going to continue to be the case for the future.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

A school on that site has been on the books for nearly 30 years. Here's the ODP bylaw: https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/odp/ch.pdf dated Nov 6 1990. Where's the outcry that it's taken more than a generation to finally deliver an elementary school to this neighbourhood?

As for including non-market housing on-site, that is still housing and has been part of the ODP all along, too. Coal Harbour ODP 2.2.7 Plan For All Age Groups and Incomes specifically notes in (b) that Parks, school, day care, and other community facilities needs should be provided; and (d) says Accommodation suitable for all age groups and income levels should be provided.

What exactly is your issue with this?

My issue is it's on astronomically expensive waterfront land.

I feel that our tax dollars can be better spent. I mean the school is one thing. But the non market housing could be put elsewhere. It should be market housing. People should have a right to housing, not waterfront housing.

[officedweller]

I agree that it's not the best use of such resources, but...

I suppose the City did that (sold land ear-marked for social housing) with 601 Beach Crescent and was rewarded with a lawsuit from Concord Pacific.

It may depend on the underlying terms for the transfer of the lands from CP/Marathon (in this case) and whether the developer has residual rights to ensure that the land is not flipped to a competitor (even if Coal Harbour Green has been built out for years).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

My issue is it's on astronomically expensive waterfront land.

I feel that our tax dollars can be better spent. I mean the school is one thing. But the non market housing could be put elsewhere. It should be market housing. People should have a right to housing, not waterfront housing.

If the City was buying an expensive waterfront site to build non-market housing, I think you would have a more valid objection. As SFU noted, the plan is 30 years old, and the City's ownership of the land is at least 20 years old (as the Community Centre on the same lot was opened in 2000), so it wasn't bought at a prime price. We don't know what type/mix of affordable housing will be here, but it almost certainly won't be welfare rate recently homeless residents. It's likely the rents will be closer to market on at least a proportion of the units, just like the C-side tower nearby. With the community centre having a park on the roof, and this building effectively forming an extension of that structure, I can see why the City would want to retain ownership and control of the whole thing. Building the Crosstown School next to International Village was a nightmare, with a court case and delays as a result.

There was always a plan to have a mix of tenants in Coal Harbour; there's a senior's non-market housing facility, a housing co-op and the C-side tower with non-market units, just as with all the major projects which include non-market buildings. This is really an opportunistic rental housing site (because the primary intent is to build the school).

There's nowhere else the school could go, another site nearby would indeed cost the City a fortune, and this has been planned for decades. Following your logic, should the City sell off the Community Centre, and the nearby parks, because it's prime waterfront land?

[osirisboy]

Sell the expensive land. Buy cheap land. Build the non market housing on that.

I'm not talking about the school,, I agree. The area should have a school. And as you said the land is limited.

I'm talking about the non market housing. But whatever. None of this matters since the city wants a mix of users in coal harbour. Which is ridiculous. And yes all those other existing non market housing I'm against as well.

And yes I'm aware that this has always been the plan. Lol that's not a reason for me to agree with it