Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[cov]

I think it should be 3 floors taller with ground-floor retail. But if this one moves forward its definitely in the right direction. I won't complain

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's silly. Granville is basically a highway.

It IS a highway. Highway 99

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's silly. Granville is basically a highway.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

It IS a highway. Highway 99

you cant call a city street with a — load of traffic signals a highway, no matter the secondary name of it, sorry.

also, the effects of a larger development encroaching lead to issues to the properties behind them, off Granville. such as more vehicles in the lane, large garbage trucks, etc. it does make a difference to those people. and Granville St isn't the appropriate place for it.

Arbutus, Oak, Cambie are all fine. but Granville, North of 41st - 16th the middle of is Shaughnessy. it is one of the few areas of the city that should be preserved.

South of 41st, now i can see this being appropriate for sure, but not in Shaughnessy.

[osirisboy]

You are thinking of a freeway. Highways can have lights. Think of Fraser highway or king George highway (although now changed to blvd).

Also, it’s the same size garbage trucks that service houses as they would for this development. Sorry

It’s ridiculous having houses on Granville. And We don’t need to “preserve” that whole area. I would say anything south of king Edward is fair game. That’s second Shaughnessy anyways

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

You are thinking of a freeway. Highways can have lights. Think of Fraser highway or king George highway (although now changed to blvd).

Also, it’s the same size garbage trucks that service houses as they would for this development. Sorry

It’s ridiculous having houses on Granville. And We don’t need to “preserve” that whole area. I would say anything south of king Edward is fair game. That’s second Shaughnessy anyways

you are right, they can have lights. but no — loads of lights. there is a certain point where a highway has too many lights to be a true highway. Granville St is one of them.

not true. CoV trucks for homes are smaller than the large ones for commercial bins. they also create a lot more noise than the regular house ones.

Shaughnessy should be preserved. its one of the few areas of the city that still maintains its old character. even 2nd and 3rd should be preserved.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by vancouverofthefuture

you cant call a city street with a — load of traffic signals a highway, no matter the secondary name of it, sorry.

Also, the effects of a larger development encroaching lead to issues to the properties behind them, off granville. Such as more vehicles in the lane, large garbage trucks, etc. It does make a difference to those people. And granville st isn't the appropriate place for it.

Arbutus, oak, cambie are all fine. But granville, north of 41st - 16th the middle of is shaughnessy. It is one of the few areas of the city that should be preserved.

South of 41st, now i can see this being appropriate for sure, but not in shaughnessy.

nimby.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you are right, they can have lights. but no — loads of lights. there is a certain point where a highway has too many lights to be a true highway. Granville St is one of them.

Granville Street through Shaughnessy has fewer lights than Lougheed Highway through Brentwood. Granville Street is an official highway, it's an official City of Vancouver trucking route, there is no reason to be opposed to development on this dense corridor.

Shaughnessy should be preserved. its one of the few areas of the city that still maintains its old character. even 2nd and 3rd should be preserved.

So what? Should we have preserved the "old character" of 1970s Yaletown? No. They're just houses, we don't need to hoard them.

The West End was like Shaughnessy in its early days, but we managed to densify it before modern nimbyism. Shaughnessy isn't special.

[Migrant_Coconut]

If we want to keep the neighbourhood as a boring semi-upper class enclave, we can just approve ~3-6 floor gated condos and mansion blocks to drown out the renters. Everything north of King Ed'll eventually need to be upzoned.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The West End was like Shaughnessy in its early days, but we managed to densify it before modern nimbyism. Shaughnessy isn't special.

exactly, and that is one of the reasons zoning laws were created to prevent that happening again.

there are many other areas to up zone, and Shaughnessy shouldn't be one of them. it is literally the only place where a lot of the homes are built before 1945 and where they are on large lots from 0.5 - 2 acres.

[TheTerminalCity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

exactly, and that is one of the reasons zoning laws were created to prevent that happening again.

there are many other areas to up zone, and Shaughnessy shouldn't be one of them. it is literally the only place where a lot of the homes are built before 1945 and where they are on large lots from 0.5 - 2 acres.

Who are we preserving Shaughnessy for? And I mean that genuinely, I'd like to get your take on it.

It is a distinctive area of the city, especially First Shaughnessy. At the same time, Vancouver has been growing since the 19th century on a nearly unbroken path, both as a city and a region. I have to think there is some space to compromise between preservation and intensification. Strathcona is more interesting with the mix of buildings and types...obviously much smaller lots there.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

exactly, and that is one of the reasons zoning laws were created to prevent that happening again.

there are many other areas to up zone, and Shaughnessy shouldn't be one of them. it is literally the only place where a lot of the homes are built before 1945 and where they are on large lots from 0.5 - 2 acres.

Before you try to educate the next generation on how forgoing lattes will magically generate a downpayment on an inflated real estate market, please change your username.

Thank you.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you are right, they can have lights. but no — loads of lights. there is a certain point where a highway has too many lights to be a true highway. Granville St is one of them.

not true. CoV trucks for homes are smaller than the large ones for commercial bins. they also create a lot more noise than the regular house ones.

Shaughnessy should be preserved. its one of the few areas of the city that still maintains its old character. even 2nd and 3rd should be preserved.

Really? Boo-—-hoo!

It's OK for residents of Kits, Mt Pleasant or Main Street where there are lots of pre-war homes but for the fragile, rarified snowflakes of Shaughnessy?!

There are ways to preserve pre-war homes but a lot of Shaughnessy is now Mainland China-gauche McMansions, no more worthy of preservation than a Vancouver Special.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

exactly, and that is one of the reasons zoning laws were created to prevent that happening again.

there are many other areas to up zone, and Shaughnessy shouldn't be one of them. it is literally the only place where a lot of the homes are built before 1945 and where they are on large lots from 0.5 - 2 acres.

https://development.vancouver.ca/pc3775angus/documents/shaughnessyproperties.pdf

I think that's a common misconception. However, this map of First Shaughnessy reveals almost half of the existing structures (without lane access) were actually built after the 1940s. In short, anything that's not in black or white postdates that decade.

[s211]

Originally Posted by cov

I think it should be 3 floors taller with ground-floor retail. But if this one moves forward its definitely in the right direction. I won't complain

Retail in THAT location ?!?!?!?!?!?!

[cov]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

I think that's a common misconception. However, this map of First Shaughnessy reveals almost half of the existing structures (without lane access) were actually built after the 1940s. In short, anything that's not in black or white postdates that decade.

Does it really matter what date the houses were built in if there is nothing architecturally significant about them? They are just wooden houses. Western civilization had already achieved far better far earlier.

There is really very little of value in Shaughnessey. It makes me think that this is really about maintaining privilege for a few people who are no longer worth the privilege they demand.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cov

Does it really matter what date the houses were built in if there is nothing architecturally significant about them? They are just wooden houses. Western civilization had already achieved far better far earlier.

There is really very little of value in Shaughnessey. It makes me think that this is really about maintaining privilege for a few people who are no longer worth the privilege they demand.

Nope, now you've gone to the other ridiculous extreme from vancouverofthefuture.

The story of Shaughnessy is important to the story of Vancouver: from frontier milltown to booming port in just a few decades; corporatism in the form of its CPR developer; urban development on how it quickly usurped the West End and sent it into a rooming house spiral; etc etc. That doesn't mean every bit of it must be preserved but certainly working within its built form is preferable than unleashing some Brentwood-style horror on it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The story of Shaughnessy is important to the story of Vancouver: from frontier milltown to booming port in just a few decades; corporatism in the form of its CPR developer; urban development on how it quickly usurped the West End and sent it into a rooming house spiral; etc etc. That doesn't mean every bit of it must be preserved but certainly working within its built form is preferable than unleashing some Brentwood-style horror on it.

That story belongs in the history books, not in protected private mansions. Do you really think people look at a mansion in Shaugnessy and think "Hm, this really explains the history of Vancouver"? And would you care to explain what a "Brentwood-style horror" is? I've never heard of such a thing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Extend South Granville down a couple blocks, sprinkle in a healthy number of midrise luxury condos, call it a day. There's no need to completely remove or completely save all of Shaughnessy as-is (though we could make the Granville stretch a bit livelier).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

That story belongs in the history books, not in protected private mansions. Do you really think people look at a mansion in Shaugnessy and think "Hm, this really explains the history of Vancouver"? And would you care to explain what a "Brentwood-style horror" is? I've never heard of such a thing.

Quite a few homes in Shaughnessy are already multi-family.

Brentwood: soulless "built in a day" neighbourhood.

[cov]

if Shaughnessy is already multifamily then surely building more would just be reinvigorating neighborhood character? I'd be more than happy to transform Shaughnessy into a multi-family paradise.