Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Vancouver_Highrise]

Jollyburger do you have any idea when holborn plans to release their bay parkade plans to the public?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by MistyMountain

It would be nice to see a viewcone for BC place. It's a landmark, and its unfortunate that its getting at least partially covered up by developments, especially after we spent $500M on it.

Reps at some of the open houses have mentioned an unofficial policy of hiding the old "ugly" BC Place back in the 90s-00s era.

Then the renovation finished and suddenly people liked the new look, but by then it was too late to reverse the old policy. Oh well.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If you'll check the podium (that isn't affected by the viewcones), you'll find four such units on each floor.

Remember that this is social housing - these are likely tenants who'd otherwise be in a shelter.

The podium's studio units are still at 355-380 sq. ft which is the same sq. ft that social housing tenants in the tower have access to (which is great for virtue signaling that everyone gets treated equally). I'm sure that one of the leading reasons for this developer to cram all of these studio units into the podium was for the building to generate enough revenue for the building but that does absolutely nothing for actual livability for the people that need to live inside them. I get that we have to balance the economics of building a tower with livability but even at the podium level I can't help but to observe that the economics of this tower is significantly affecting the livability of it, whether there's a view cone or not.

It doesn't matter who the units are designed for, 355 sq. ft (including a bathroom) is tiny. All I'm saying is that the rent on the studio units better be comparable to an SRU (or they better be designer suites with high quality features) for the people that live in them as you can get SRUs that have more sq. ft than these micro units.

Honestly my biggest issue is that these view cones have cut the square footage off of livable units for a bloody view cone. The average apartment size in the US with the tiniest apartment sizes is 711 sq. ft and that's in Seattle. So I can't help but to get concerned that the livability in downtown Vancouver is put into jeopardy with one of its many arbitrary city policies that hinders developments as this is a clear-cut black & white example of it.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

Jollyburger do you have any idea when holborn plans to release their bay parkade plans to the public?

Sorry, I don't have any access to that kind of information unlike other people on this forum

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by scryer

The podium's studio units are still at 355-380 sq. ft which is the same sq. ft that social housing tenants in the tower have access to (which is great for virtue signaling that everyone gets treated equally).

It doesn't matter who the units are designed for, 355 sq. ft (including a bathroom) is tiny. All I'm saying is that the rent on this thing better not be more than an SRU (or they better be designed with super high quality features) for regular working people. You can get SRUs that have more sq. ft than these micro units.

Honestly my biggest issue is that these view cones have cut the square footage off of livable units for a bloody view cone. The average apartment size in the US with the tiniest apartment sizes is 711 sq. ft and that's in Seattle. So I can't help but to get concerned that the livability in downtown Vancouver is put into jeopardy with one of its many arbitrary city policies that hinders developments as this is a clear-cut black & white example of it.

If this was an isolated example of tiny studio units specifically affected by a viewcone, you might have a valid argument. There are plenty of examples of studio units in Burnaby and Surrey under 400 square feet, where there are no viewcones, so it would seem that there's a market for small units, whatever the policy context. And neither Shangri La or The Trump Tower have particularly small units, but both buildings were designed the way they were to avoid a viewcone, so it's not inevitable that designing for a viewcone ends up with small units. In this case the developer is presumably creating unit sizes that meet their needs as a social housing provider, albeit impacted by the building's design to incorporate the viewcone.

Seattle is a great place to look at comparisons. The average size doesn't tell you much though. There are currently studios for rent there, targetted at from 161 to 285 sq ft in Common Broadway for example - and the smallest is still renting at over $1,000ca a month.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Changing City

If this was an isolated example of tiny studio units specifically affected by a viewcone, you might have a valid argument.

The developer designed the tower the way it is BECAUSE of a view cone. That effects the shape & size of the units and the structure itself.

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are plenty of examples of studio units in Burnaby and Surrey under 400 square feet, where there are no viewcones, so it would seem that there's a market for small units, whatever the policy context.

I'm not denying that there's a market for studio units elsewhere in metro Vancouver. But IN THIS CASE, the developer designed the building AROUND a view cone which influences the design of the units. This is not a complicated statement; it's black and white and right in front of our faces.

Originally Posted by Changing City

And neither Shangri La or The Trump Tower have particularly small units, but both buildings were designed the way they were to avoid a viewcone, so it's not inevitable that designing for a viewcone ends up with small units.

This is actually proving a point that city policies are more heavily influencing the housing market in a negative way by placing design limitations via city policies. Full disclosure: I do want to see the view cones updated but I also want to see other city policies updated as well such as parking minimums. It's not just the view cones that are limiting development and our housing, it's a plethora of other city policies too. Some policies are good, others are outdated and they deserve to be reviewed as we are in a housing crisis.

And the fact that there are more examples of designs being watered down by view cones proves that this isn't an isolated case; which is actually worse.

Originally Posted by Changing City

In this case the developer is presumably creating unit sizes that meet their needs as a social housing provider, albeit impacted by the building's design to incorporate the viewcone.

Proving again how the view cone policy has influenced the design of the building and the units to be much smaller to cram as much people as possible per floor to meet a social housing requirement. Even if we take the social housing component out of the equation, this tower is still packing people in like sardines and that city policies are watering down livable units and is completely unfair to the people that actually have to live in them, especially to a vulnerable population.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Seattle is a great place to look at comparisons. The average size doesn't tell you much though. There are currently studios for rent there, targetted at from 161 to 285 sq ft in Common Broadway for example - and the smallest is still renting at over $1,000ca a month.

A 161-285 sq ft apartment renting for $1000+ CAD is straight up embarrassing and unacceptable, and the fact that this tower has studio units that have 70 sq. ft of more space due to a view cone doesn't make it less embarrassing for Vancouver. I think that Vancouver deserves to not only have an affordable housing market (whether rental or purchase) but to have a housing market that is actually livable. People are living in closets in Vancouver with less Sq. Ft than what you're finding in Seattle. Our city design policies need to change to accommodate the housing crisis and this tower is a clear example as to why.

You said it yourself there are plenty of micro units in Metro Vancouver however those designers chose to build those towers that way without the pressures of a view cone. That's free market 101.

The impression that I get from this developer is that in order to meet the social housing requirement they had to cram in as many units as possible; in addition to dealing with an arbitrary view cone where you can only see the very tip of a mountain on a clear day from a specific location in the city. This is exactly how a city policy absolutely dummied this project from reaching a more sophisticated potential.

[GenWhy?]

Without the viewcone the units in this building would likely be the same square footage.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by scryer

I'm not denying that there's a market for studio units elsewhere in metro Vancouver. But IN THIS CASE, the developer designed the building AROUND a view cone which influences the design of the units. This is not a complicated statement; it's black and white and right in front of our faces.

Nobody forced them to jam so many small units into the floorplate they had available. That was the developers choice.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by scryer

Full disclosure: I do want to see the view cones updated but I also want to see other city policies updated as well such as parking minimums. It's not just the view cones that are limiting development and our housing, it's a plethora of other city policies too. Some policies are good, others are outdated and they deserve to be reviewed as we are in a housing crisis.

Your comments are all over the map - but on this one you seem to have missed the fact that that there are no parking minimums Downtown - only a requirement for a few accessible spaces.

And if you think allowing taller buildings Downtown will affect affordability beneficially (other than creating a few even more expensive units and raising the average price) you weren't paying attention in Economics 101.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by MistyMountain

It would be nice to see a viewcone for BC place. It's a landmark, and its unfortunate that its getting at least partially covered up by developments, especially after we spent $500M on it.

This is indeed one of those ironic situations where before the roof renovations, everyone wanted to cover it up or hide it behind as many towers as possible.

And then when the roof was re-done and became something of an architectural and engineering landmark, suddenly it seems like a viewcone preserving the view might not be such a bad thing.

It's a pity that all the proposed developments for that part of False Creek will seemingly do more of the exact opposite of that and end up hiding most of it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

The impression that I get from this developer is that in order to meet the social housing requirement they had to cram in as many units as possible; in addition to dealing with an arbitrary view cone where you can only see the very tip of a mountain on a clear day from a specific location in the city. This is exactly how a city policy absolutely dummied this project from reaching a more sophisticated potential.

Again, check the plans for the lower floors. The more likely outcome sans viewcone is a tower with a hundred additional shoeboxes.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Without the viewcone the units in this building would likely be the same square footage.

What makes you so sure of that? Look at the lower podium units: way more usable space than those useless angular units further up. Even if the square footage is similar, the units without Viewcones would be better laid out. There would also be a lot more units for many more residents to live in the City centre. Viewcones ensure that such benefits are highly curtailed or even outright castrated.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

What makes you so sure of that? Look at the lower podium units: way more usable space than those useless angular units further up. Even if the square footage is similar, the units without Viewcones would be better laid out. There would also be a lot more units for many more residents to live in the City centre. Viewcones ensure that such benefits are highly curtailed or even outright castrated.

The shapes change, yes, not disputing that, but economics and policy would determine its square footage max and min. A studio's net square footage is about 380-400.

For economic reasons building social housing in an expensive to build concrete tower you'd want the most units possible to sustain operating and maintaining the building over its lifetime.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The shapes change, yes, not disputing that, but economics and policy would determine its square footage max and min. A studio's net square footage is about 380-400.

For economic reasons building social housing in an expensive to build concrete tower you'd want the most units possible to sustain operating and maintaining the building over its lifetime.

Social housing units can remain the same, but market housing units can be increased with the bigger floor plates. If you want to talk about economics of scale, the efficiency in constructing more of the same item actually makes the cost per unit go down.

[Feathered Friend]

Yaletown’s Heritage Resurrection Achieves Unparalleled Success At Vancouver’s 2020 Urban Design Panel

837 Beatty St (DP-2020-00531)
It is somewhat sad that the most attention the Anglo American Warehouse has garnered recently was over a failed plan to replace it with a 26 floor rental building (pg 24). That focus was understandable, as developers rarely reveal their proposals have been rejected, which in this case was due to a policy that prevents shadowing on Terry Fox Plaza, and the proximity to another recently approved development (pg 47). Unfortunately, it also left Darren and I debating whether we should bother writing this summary.

After all, we have no desire to rehash the same old story, but no one else has covered this Urban Design Panel meeting, and I already sat through it anyways. Fortunately, the review of this 119-year-old aspiration proved to be anything but boring, despite a slight delay as one proponent struggled to join this virtual event. Yet, by the end of the night, I witnessed something that I knew was worth bringing attention to.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2020/11/19...s-at-vancouvers-2020-urban-design-panel/

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Social housing units can remain the same, but market housing units can be increased with the bigger floor plates. If you want to talk about economics of scale, the efficiency in constructing more of the same item actually makes the cost per unit go down.

I assume we are talking generalities and not on the earlier discussed social housing tower: Yes market rental / condos you could do larger than typical floorplates but I'm not sure why many developers would let their architects do that unless they are aiming upon completion a wealthy demographic. You don't want units to be too big or they present you a loss (bigger units = less overall units and more units always equals more revenue even if units are "small") and for condos if you build them too big (especially downtown where it's expensive to build / buy land) their price-per-square-foot can be tricky to sell.

Minimizing risk is always preferred. However! If you see a strangely large 1-bed or studio it's likely that they are to be sneakily marketed with "dens" (extra bedroom). I remember a few downtown and when I was in the Opal in Olympic Village that "extra bedrooms" and their layouts were purposefully conducive to that addition. I think 8X does this?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

[

Who would have thought a spandrel panel was all that!?!?


https://shapeyourcity.ca/17526/widgets/68942/documents/42035

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2020/11/19...s-at-vancouvers-2020-urban-design-panel/

I have to wonder why we have a "city policy that discourages mimicry of heritage elements". In some instances they are appropriate.

[GenWhy?]

My understanding is that the guidelines / policy comes from here: Parks Canada’s Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.

Typically, mimicking it detracts from what is being saved, or so the argument goes but usually you don't see very good "mimicking". When you do, in the rare occasion, at a pretty penny, it looks very very good.

[SpongeG]

I will post more later on my thoughts of my recent trip downtown.

But I was surprised to see junk hanging in the windows at the Howard Johnson than I realized it has turned back into a welfare hotel and hence the reason for the junk in the windows lol.

2020-11-19_05-34-14 by snub_you, on Flickr