Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Vin]

For such a simple-looking renovation, the partially-hidden wooden panelings are a really nice touch, and they signify the subtle continuity from the south to the north side of the office building complex.

[officedweller]

Yeah, part of the purpose was to better integrate the front with the new rear building, but that still leaves the main tower with the old style - i wonder if it will be reclad?
If so, the chamfered corners are a departure from the newer style.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, all the trees on the plaza are gone. I assume the 2 remaining ones are on the setback, so no garage under them.

Yeah the ramps extended right to the property line.

[whatnext]

Beach Towers sold for $300 million. How ridiculous is it that with hundreds of Vancouver renters impacted by this we don't know who bought it?

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/beach-towers-vancouver-west-end-sold

[officedweller]

The tenants would likely have been notified.
If you really need to know, do a land title search - but there's a BCOnline fee.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by ranvancan

You are correct........BUT!!!!!!
Defecating, urinating, polluting (especially discarding used drug paraphanalia and needles), harassing, spitting on people, stabbing random people and sleeping on street corners, pitching tents on street corners, and public parks are all illegal.
Our civic rights are invaded and now occupied by society's deviants and we will never get past it anymore with our and our civic leaders' 'turn a blind eye' mentality.

Whenever things swing too far, they swing back, just as far in the other direction.
Politicians who wish to virtue signal have, I suppose, the power to do so with public property.
but private property??????
In what universe.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by Vin

https://www.vancourier.com/news/vancouve...ENLI5O8TOEan3zFhyS-8jOlPabeTJo8sQfvGniPM

Remember the phrase "law and order" ????

The first part means that the law is whatever the politician says it is.

but the second part "Order" is for us, as citizens to demand.

The drug life is created entirely through government fiat (arbitrary actions). The good government takes that portion of society who have given up and just want a few hours of bliss to seek that substance at almost daily risk to themselves, first ... through street level dug supplies which are grotesquely poisonous. Second through the need to commit a crime every day , exposing us and them to harm during the act.

My solution. Get the brain dead government OUT of the drug business. Follow Portugal and legalize all personal use of any substance. Supply pharmaceutical grade drugs, at low or no cost to users, bypassing the drug lord chain. Third, turn the entire problem over the medical community (and maybe the various religious communities who care) and have them treat the souls of those damned by drugs as well as their bodies.

Comments???

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

Remember the phrase "law and order" ????

The first part means that the law is whatever the politician says it is.

but the second part "Order" is for us, as citizens to demand.

The drug life is created entirely through government fiat (arbitrary actions). The good government takes that portion of society who have given up and just want a few hours of bliss to seek that substance at almost daily risk to themselves, first ... through street level dug supplies which are grotesquely poisonous. Second through the need to commit a crime every day , exposing us and them to harm during the act.

My solution. Get the brain dead government OUT of the drug business. Follow Portugal and legalize all personal use of any substance. Supply pharmaceutical grade drugs, at low or no cost to users, bypassing the drug lord chain. Third, turn the entire problem over the medical community (and maybe the various religious communities who care) and have them treat the souls of those damned by drugs as well as their bodies.

Comments???

My comment is that this isn't a thread about drug policy, it's about Updates on Downtown developments. Somehow, it keeps getting hijacked.

[red-paladin]

Please let's keep the thread on the specified subject, I agree that it's getting side tracked.

[Feathered Friend]

http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf


http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf


http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf


http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf


http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf


http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf


http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf


http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf


http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf


http://www.brookpooni.com/app/uploads/2020/01/1640-1650-Alberni-Street-Pre-App-Boards-WEB.pdf

Vancouver’s Lost Opportunity Seeks To Redefine World Class Family Housing
1640-1650 Alberni Street

Hannah and I are deeply grateful for the support of our readers, as your kind words help us recover after rough events, and without your tips we wouldn’t be able to attend as many of them either. That’s because, unlike other cities, development enquires aren’t made public in Vancouver, and only those within two blocks of a project are notified about its pre-application open house. Yet, I’m proud to say I learned of this one all by myself.

Unfortunately, that came too late for us to attend this meeting, as it was assumedly held in January. That said, I imagine those who received notice cards weren’t caught off guard, as the 51 year-old Brockton House has been slated for redevelopment since 2016. That application sought to provide a total of 276 rental homes in a “world-class” 42 story tower, but despite winning the support of the Urban Design Panel , it was abandoned less than two years later.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2020/04/20...-to-redefine-world-class-family-housing/

[Anorak]

It's really sad how much Vancouver is kneecapping affordability in the city. With all these CAC's and the extremely lengthy rezoning and approval process it makes it very hard/unappealing to build here. It seems because of it only the biggest are able to develop here (Westbank, Onni etc.), with everyone else going to Burnaby for their better planning laws, and rental in Vancouver gets left by the wayside

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Anorak

It's really sad how much Vancouver is kneecapping affordability in the city. With all these CAC's and the extremely lengthy rezoning and approval process it makes it very hard/unappealing to build here. It seems because of it only the biggest are able to develop here (Westbank, Onni etc.), with everyone else going to Burnaby for their better planning laws, and rental in Vancouver gets left by the wayside

CMHC statistics show that Vancouver has had more housing starts than any other municipality in every one of the past ten years.

The Metro Vancouver Data Book shows that Vancouver has had more rental housing starts than any other municipality, and 46% of all Metro rental housing units in the past decade.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by Changing City

CMHC statistics show that Vancouver has had more housing starts than any other municipality in every one of the past ten years.

The Metro Vancouver Data Book shows that Vancouver has had more rental housing starts than any other municipality, and 46% of all Metro rental housing units in the past decade.

I mean that makes sense, they're the center of the region. They should be first. However just because they're doing better than other municipalities doesn't mean they can't be doing better.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Anorak

I mean that makes sense, they're the center of the region. They should be first. However just because they're doing better than other municipalities doesn't mean they can't be doing better.

According to the Metro Vancouver plan, Vancouver actually shouldn't be building more housing than other municipalities. Like New Westminster (which is an even older municipality) all the land has been developed already, so it always involves redevelopment of something else. Municipalities like Surrey are bigger, have areas of undeveloped land, and the land is cheaper to buy.

In terms of rental and affordable housing, you'll know that until the relatively recent change in the Mayor and some Council members, rental was not any sort of priority in Burnaby. So much so that the Data Book shows there was a net loss of 875 purpose built rental housing units in Burnaby between 2007 and 2018. There were under 400 added in Surrey in the same period, but there were over 3,300 more in Vancouver, over half the net increase in purpose-built rentals in the region. That's not nearly enough, but if other municipalities had policies to create rental like the City of Vancouver, it would help the affordability and rental problem. Burnaby's policies have changed, and the statistics in a few years time should look better - but that's after a decade of not seeming to care about providing rental housing.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by Changing City

According to the Metro Vancouver plan, Vancouver actually shouldn't be building more housing than other municipalities. Like New Westminster (which is an even older municipality) all the land has been developed already, so it always involves redevelopment of something else. Municipalities like Surrey are bigger, have areas of undeveloped land, and the land is cheaper to buy.

In terms of rental and affordable housing, you'll know that until the relatively recent change in the Mayor and some Council members, rental was not any sort of priority in Burnaby. So much so that the Data Book shows there was a net loss of 875 purpose built rental housing units in Burnaby between 2007 and 2018. There were under 400 added in Surrey in the same period, but there were over 3,300 more in Vancouver, over half the net increase in purpose-built rentals in the region. That's not nearly enough, but if other municipalities had policies to create rental like the City of Vancouver, it would help the affordability and rental problem. Burnaby's policies have changed, and the statistics in a few years time should look better - but that's after a decade of not seeming to care about providing rental housing.

That's all based off the assumption that the Metro Vancouver plan is something worth following. There are a number of flaws with that plan, although it's good to hear that other municipalities are starting to increase rental build out.

I disagree that the land in Vancouver is already developed, there are quite literally hundreds of acres of single family homes in Vancouver that can and should be redeveloped. If Vancouver is priding itself on being sustainable, it should be building a lot more, as the COV is where access to transit and walkability is highest in the region. The COV should be building more housing (both strata and rental) than all the other municipalities combined.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Anorak

That's all based off the assumption that the Metro Vancouver plan is something worth following. There are a number of flaws with that plan, although it's good to hear that other municipalities are starting to increase rental build out.

I disagree that the land in Vancouver is already developed, there are quite literally hundreds of acres of single family homes in Vancouver that can and should be redeveloped. If Vancouver is priding itself on being sustainable, it should be building a lot more, as the COV is where access to transit and walkability is highest in the region. The COV should be building more housing (both strata and rental) than all the other municipalities combined.

And now - back to our regular programing: Downtown Vancouver Updates.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Changing City

According to the Metro Vancouver plan, Vancouver actually shouldn't be building more housing than other municipalities. Like New Westminster (which is an even older municipality) all the land has been developed already, so it always involves redevelopment of something else. Municipalities like Surrey are bigger, have areas of undeveloped land, and the land is cheaper to buy.

But what Vancouver fails to do time, and time again is maximize density where ever possible - and it can't with all of these outdated policies put into place. It's why streets like Denman, Granville, Robson, and Davie have commercial storefronts that are only 1-3 floors tall in the middle of the downtown peninsula. This is unacceptable during a housing crisis. And the fact that these particular streets are only being developed with towers that are only (maybe) 20-35fl due to city policies is designing the city for sprawl. Btw, I haven't even laid into the fact that 75% of the land zoned for SFH's - I mean, who can afford SFH's these days?

It doesn't matter if the COV is leading in housing production if it isn't effective and progressive enough to support the next generation.

Saying that the other municipalities have more land is actually anti-environmental and it impedes on the limited agricultural land of the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley areas. I would rather see effective dense developments that preserve our environment and contribute positively to the economy than lose any more land unnecessarily.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Anorak

The COV should be building more housing (both strata and rental) than all the other municipalities combined.

Right now, the CoV's got about 27-28% of Metro Van's housing starts, and we can/should work on getting it up to ~30% or more.

In comparison, Toronto's averaged 35% of Metro Toronto's. Manhattan, the City That Never Sleeps, has only managed 30% of NYC's, and most of that is preservation. Be reasonable - 50% definitely isn't.

Originally Posted by scryer

But what Vancouver fails to do time, and time again is maximize density where ever possible - and it can't with all of these outdated policies put into place. It's why streets like Denman, Granville, Robson, and Davie have commercial storefronts that are only 1-3 floors tall in the middle of the downtown peninsula. This is unacceptable during a housing crisis. And the fact that these particular streets are only being developed with towers that are only (maybe) 20-35fl due to city policies is designing the city for sprawl. Btw, I haven't even laid into the fact that 75% of the land zoned for SFH's - I mean, who can afford SFH's these days?

It doesn't matter if the COV is leading in housing production if it isn't effective and progressive enough to support the next generation.

Saying that the other municipalities have more land is actually anti-environmental and it impedes on the limited agricultural land of the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley areas. I would rather see effective dense developments that preserve our environment and contribute positively to the economy than lose any more land unnecessarily.

To a certain extent.

A) The SFHs need to go, yes, but we both agree that many neighbourhoods only need to be replaced with Missing Middle lowrises or midrises, not 30-40 floor towers. The latter would be both unnecessary and detrimental to Vancouver.

B) While containing sprawl is laudable, eventually you do run out of space within the city proper. Manhattan - as mentioned above - has reached the point where most starts are preservations and new builds mean demolishing mid/high-rises and building higher-rises. Secondary downtowns also help reduce cross-metro traffic.

C) If we can figure out a way to keep businesses while upzoning the street, by all means. What's been happening is that they all get kicked out and replaced with big brands, which if applied to Davie on a wider scale would effectively kill it.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Right now, the CoV's got about 27-28% of Metro Van's housing starts, and we can/should work on getting it up to ~30% or more.

In comparison, Toronto's averaged 35% of Metro Toronto's. Manhattan, the City That Never Sleeps, has only managed 30% of NYC's, and most of that is preservation. Be reasonable - 50% definitely isn't.

I'd love to be at a point where we only needed to build that much, but unfortunately the COV has woefully under built in the past few decades, so there needs to be a significant (short term) spike in housing developments if they want to be able to bring housing costs to where it is affordable for a the salaries in Vancouver.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A) The SFHs need to go, yes, but we both agree that many neighbourhoods only need to be replaced with Missing Middle lowrises or midrises, not 30-40 floor towers. The latter would be both unnecessary and detrimental to Vancouver.

When Scryer was suggesting there needs to be more towers, he was specifically referencing downtown. While I agree the vast majority of Vancouver only needs to be midrises, townhouses, etc. downtown definitely needs more density.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

B) While containing sprawl is laudable, eventually you do run out of space within the city proper. Manhattan - as mentioned above - has reached the point where most starts are preservations and new builds mean demolishing mid/high-rises and building higher-rises. Secondary downtowns also help reduce cross-metro traffic.

Manhattan is a pretty hyperbolic comparison, Vancouver is ~10x smaller. But if you want to go there, if we could get even a 1/2 of the density they have downtown, in and adjacent to the downtown peninsula that would do wonders for affordability and livability, not to mention carbon emissions.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

C) If we can figure out a way to keep businesses while upzoning the street, by all means. What's been happening is that they all get kicked out and replaced with big brands, which if applied to Davie on a wider scale would effectively kill it.

There are certainly ways to keep businesses, and building up around them would likely actually allow them to keep operating when so many are closing down. This is because they're being taxed and rent is being set at prices that reflect the property's central location, without the corresponding density, so with all the new customers brought in by increased density they would be able to succeed. New York has a thriving small business scene.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Anorak

I'd love to be at a point where we only needed to build that much, but unfortunately the COV has woefully under built in the past few decades, so there needs to be a significant (short term) spike in housing developments if they want to be able to bring housing costs to where it is affordable for a the salaries in Vancouver.

Good news - Covid has both increased supply and reduced demand!

And the Cambie Corridor alone is supposed to bring over 30k new homes online; the Broadway Corridor should be much the same. If all that plus Toronto-level construction can't fix affordability, nothing will.

Originally Posted by Anorak

When Scryer was suggesting there needs to be more towers, he was specifically referencing downtown. While I agree the vast majority of Vancouver only needs to be midrises, townhouses, etc. downtown definitely needs more density.

Manhattan is a pretty hyperbolic comparison, Vancouver is ~10x smaller. But if you want to go there, if we could get even a 1/2 of the density they have downtown, in and adjacent to the downtown peninsula that would do wonders for affordability and livability, not to mention carbon emissions.

There are certainly ways to keep businesses, and building up around them would likely actually allow them to keep operating when so many are closing down. This is because they're being taxed and rent is being set at prices that reflect the property's central location, without the corresponding density, so with all the new customers brought in by increased density they would be able to succeed. New York has a thriving small business scene.

1.5x, actually; downtown's population density is 16,764/km² to their 25,846/km²... and we're running out of lowrises and empty lots. It's not like I compared us to HK; like Manhattan, there's only so much blood in the turnip. Gotta start building into the suburbs.
And while City Hall's regs should definitely be relaxed for aesthetic reasons, they're only costing the city around 10-15 units per tower, and each tower is only ~220 units each to begin with.

Densifiying the West End is a good move. It's not the final solution. That would be building more West Ends near rapid transit, all over the metro. Also, more rapid transit, lest we get thousands of new drivers bringing CO2 rates back up.

Around them, not on them (as suggested). Replace a cafe in Vancouver, it doesn't become another cafe - it becomes a Starbucks or an Arc'teryx. That goes far beyond tax or rent rates.