General Vancouver Updates

[GenWhy?]

There are 8 or 10 active constrcution sites in the area now and I think a dozen in-the-pipe proposals that I know of right now and we're working on 2 prelim studies for sites because they're 1-storey applicance or wholesale shops that families have owned for years. Print gold in this area.

It's already very busy and will be a zoo soon. Friday's all bars and brewery seats are taken by 5pm.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by logan5

Haven't seen that one before. I wonder if Mt. Pleasant industrial area will keep up this pace. Imagine the whole area being these low rise office buildings. It would be super busy and teeming with people, at least in the daytime. Maybe it will be a catalyst for more restaurants and other afterhours activity. I really like the heritage homes that have been converted to little restaurants or coffee shops. Maybe we'll see more of that.

Agreed, it's getting a pretty unique vibe. Still a long ways to go but I like the direction it's headed in.

[Prometheus]

The city needs to do the responsible thing and substantially increase the allowable densities to more appropriate levels for this area before its too late and they squander yet another opportunity for a better, more functional and interesting city. Four storeys in an old, underdeveloped light industrial district is absurd even for this crazy period in Vancouver's history.

[logan5]

Do we need to do that at this point? The Broadway corridor can be more of a office tower area for the next couple decades or so.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by logan5

Haven't seen that one before. I wonder if Mt. Pleasant industrial area will keep up this pace. Imagine the whole area being these low rise office buildings. It would be super busy and teeming with people, at least in the daytime. Maybe it will be a catalyst for more restaurants and other afterhours activity. I really like the heritage homes that have been converted to little restaurants or coffee shops. Maybe we'll see more of that.

There are already a lot of breweries, and now on Ontario street there are a number of restaurants, including Tacofino and coffee shops (Elysian and Purbread bakery). I think the trend of more retail in the area will continue.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by logan5

Do we need to do that at this point? The Broadway corridor can be more of a office tower area for the next couple decades or so.

Doesn't have to be "towers" but should be allowed to build something taller than four floors

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Doesn't have to be "towers" but should be allowed to build something taller than four floors

I believe the conversation was targeted at the light industrial part of Mount Pleasant; after a certain point, creative and digital studios don't really benefit from increased density.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by logan5

Haven't seen that one before. I wonder if Mt. Pleasant industrial area will keep up this pace. Imagine the whole area being these low rise office buildings. It would be super busy and teeming with people, at least in the daytime. Maybe it will be a catalyst for more restaurants and other afterhours activity. I really like the heritage homes that have been converted to little restaurants or coffee shops. Maybe we'll see more of that.

that park whose name i don't know is really busy into the evenings now. Usually a dozen or more people just hanging out around 6 - 7 pm. And the few places that are still open down there look to be busy. It's really changing.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

After a certain point, creative and digital studios don't really benefit from increased density.

Then there is no need to artificially restrict that kind of density in this zone, is there? Since, there is little sense in artificially imposing politically what would naturally occur economically.

Look, a rational city should be making the best and most efficient economic use of what limited supply of light industrial land it has remaining. Artificially restricting density to four floors is cutting the potential amount of jobs that can be created in half compared to allowing eight floors (or by a third compared to allowing 12 floors, etc.). Why would a sensible city do that?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Then there is no need to artificially restrict that kind of density in this zone, is there?

Look, a rational city should be making the best and most efficient economic use of what limited supply of light industrial land it has remaining. Artificially restricting density to four floors is cutting the potential amount of jobs that can be created in half compared to allowing eight floors (or by a third compared to allowing 12 floors, etc.). Why would a sensible city do that?

Except that the rezoning DOES allow for eight floors (so long as the FSR is 3.0 or less). Nothing is being restricted to four floors, it's just that the developers think four is good enough and part of the forum is on board with that.

Conversely, there's no reason to allow extra height that could be used for other unintended purposes, thereby squeezing out the kind of businesses we're trying to keep and attract. The market isn't always our friend.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except that the rezoning DOES allow for eight floors (so long as the FSR is 3.0 or less). Nothing is being restricted to four floors, it's just that the developers think four is good enough and part of the forum is on board with that.

I specifically criticized the arbitrary limitation of density and referred to floor count only insofar as it is directly correlated to density.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Artificially restricting density to four floors is cutting the potential amount of jobs that can be created in half compared to allowing eight floors (or by a third compared to allowing 12 floors, etc.).

Clearly, when you increase the height of a building from four floors to eight floors but are forced to maintain the same density as the four storey building, you are not increasing the amount of job space at all. Thus, when I speak of doubling or tripling the floor count, I am speaking of doubling or tripling density.

So, I ask again, why would a sensible city artificially restrict the density of important light industrial use on a limited and dwindling supply of land to 3.0? Why not 6.0 or 9.0 or 12.0 and double or triple or quadruple the potential amount of future jobs and economic benefit for the city?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Clearly, when you increase the height of a building from four floors to eight floors but are forced to maintain the same density as the four storey building, you are not increasing the amount of job space at all. Thus, when I speak of doubling or tripling the floor count, I am speaking of doubling or tripling density.

So, I ask again, why would a sensible city artificially restrict the density of important light industrial use on a limited and dwindling supply of land to 3.0? Why not 6.0 or 9.0 or 12.0 and double or triple or quadruple the potential amount of future jobs and economic benefit for the city?

I would very much like to know what kind of bakery or print shop would want/need an FSR of 6+ - it's almost always a two-storey warehouse on the ground floor and a few offices on top. A graphic design, film or recording studio would use even less space. Why zone for density that'll never be filled?

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Why zone for density that'll never be filled?

Why restrict density of light industrial if you don't think higher levels will be economically favoured? Why support restrictions you think are completely pointless?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Why restrict density of light industrial if you don't think higher levels will be economically favoured? Why support restrictions you think are completely pointless?

Why support a rezoning that'd definitely be completely pointless? I've yet to hear of a light industrial building that has ever needed an FSR that high; you'd have developers lobbying left and right to re-rezone to C-8 and take advantage. Given what happened the last few times the market was in charge of long-term city planning decisions, we should all be a lot more cautious.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Why support density that's definitely completely pointless?

If you believe that, then according to you there is no need to impose any restrictions on it, is there?

[Galaxy]

The top few floors could be divided into live workspaces for Artists which in this city are being pushed out. [Example] Also, I was thinking more small art galleries, and or a lot of those smaller businesses that need just space to run there business. Wonder is some even could be turned into storage space for rent....? There are also Youtubers and other types of uses that spaces if available could use above mid/heavy industry uses.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

If you believe that, then according to you there is no need to impose any restrictions on it, is there?

The very term "I-1" is a restriction - we're already picking and choosing what we want there. Neither of us want a major part of the downtown economy replaced with condos and pushed out to Coquitlam or Langley.

So why not make it official? All parties involved are okay with it.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The top few floors could be divided into live workspaces for Artists which in this city are being pushed out. [Example] Also, I was thinking more small art galleries, and or a lot of those smaller businesses that need just space to run there business. Wonder is some even could be turned into storage space for rent....? There are also Youtubers and other types of uses that spaces if available could use above mid/heavy industry uses.

Indeed they could. I don't see how the current zoning prohibits that; quite the opposite, now that everybody's allowed much more office space.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

All parties involved are okay with it.

If that is the case--if greater density of light industrial is not economically desirable--then why impose a prohibition on it? Why impose a prohibition which, by your own admission, you believe is entirely unneeded and useless? Why impose something that serves no purpose?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

If that is the case--if greater density of light industrial is not economically desirable--then why impose a prohibition on it? Why impose a prohibition that by your own admission you believe is entirely unneeded and useless? Why impose something that serves no purpose?

One, I would like to see where my "admission" is. My quote above states that there is no purpose in removing the FSR "prohibition" (implication: because there is no reason to build any higher). The only reason for that would be if it were in tandem with a rezoning for mixed-use commercial/residential e.g. Olympic Village or NEFC, which would kill light industrial in the area entirely.

Two, it's already a step-up in FSR from the previous zoning - one that tenants, developers and city planners all happily agree on.

Three, the only ones making noise are you and osiris. And this is the real reason:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The city needs to do the responsible thing and substantially increase the allowable densities to more appropriate levels for this area before its too late and they squander yet another opportunity for a better, more functional and interesting city. Four storeys in an old, underdeveloped light industrial district is absurd even for this crazy period in Vancouver's history.

It's not just four stories, it's not underdeveloped, it's not inappropriate, it's functional, it's plenty interesting to many of us on the forum... doesn't matter, because you have the green-eyed monster, and therefore a grudge against City Hall and "big government" for not going as unreasonably fast as the monster wants it to. Come on, Manhattan took four centuries to build, give us at least two!

[logan5]

Doing rough math for the Mt. Pleasant industrial district, under current zoning and deducting the industrial space, there is the potential for approximately 8 million sq feet of office space. To put into context, Downtown Vancouver has 24 million sq feet of office space. It would seem that there is enough potential for office space to meet demand for a long while.

I don't think it's so much under zoning areas like Mt Pleasant that is holding things back as it is a lack of labour to build these developments. These smaller office developments are much easier to build, so the smaller players in the development business can build as well as the big ones. These smaller projects might actually be a mechanism for getting more office space on the market, than if we were otherwise waiting for one of the big developers to get around to building a large office tower.