General Vancouver Updates

[djh]

Originally Posted by whatnext

OK let me be the first to say it: why are we giving a prime site on a transit line to house those who are unlikely ever to be working? This should go to those who work somewhere along the line. By all means house the homeless but it can be locations Main and Marine that have transit etc but are worth far less.

Well, that's the paradox, isn't it?

If we only reserve the nicest property to be used by the richest/most-deserving, and relegate the poorest and "least-deserving" to the most undesirable areas, then we get the DTES, and the Mllionaires Row in Point Grey. And then, of course, we all stand up and exclaim "why do we allow such extremes in our city!"

We can't ban certain people from certain neighbourhoods based on their worthiness. It would also be impractical to only allow a certain person to live in a certain area -what if they change professions, are they no longer eligible to live there? Just mix up the neighbourhoods - some well-paid, some below-average, and some in need of society's support, but provide the necessary tools to get them on their feet.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Too late.
A co-worker moved to North Vancouver because it was "just too much" around Broadway & 16th area.

yeah i have a coworker that did the same thing. moved to the North Shore because of that to. Vancouver really is getting worse.

as much as everyone likes to believe that everyone can live in harmony, really they cant.

[s211]

Originally Posted by officedweller

2098 West 7th Ave.

140 homes for the homeless proposed next to future Arbutus Station in Kitsilano
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/2086-209...-8th-avenue-vancouver-supportive-housing

I wonder if there will be objection because it's across from an elementary school?

You, sir, are obviously not a progressive.

[BodomReaper]

The Broadway Plan had better allow a similar amount of density for market housing throughout Kitsilano if the BC Housing project through (and in any case). How many working people would love to live in Kits, but are banned from doing so? Absurd if we start giving it away A-list locations while banning the people whose taxes finance this stuff.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Absurd if we start giving it away A-list locations while banning the people whose taxes finance this stuff.

Welcome to Vancouver...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by djh

Well, that's the paradox, isn't it?

If we only reserve the nicest property to be used by the richest/most-deserving, and relegate the poorest and "least-deserving" to the most undesirable areas, then we get the DTES, and the Mllionaires Row in Point Grey. And then, of course, we all stand up and exclaim "why do we allow such extremes in our city!"

We can't ban certain people from certain neighbourhoods based on their worthiness. It would also be impractical to only allow a certain person to live in a certain area -what if they change professions, are they no longer eligible to live there? Just mix up the neighbourhoods - some well-paid, some below-average, and some in need of society's support, but provide the necessary tools to get them on their feet.

We ban many people from certain areas now because of their incomes. I would much rather the working poor get housing along the Broadway corridor than those who won’t work at all. Why shouldn’t a janitor at UBC or VGH get those homes instead of someone who was doing meth at Oppenheimer Park?

[SpongeG]

the proposal for housing at King Edward and Knight seems to have a lot of people against it, how dare "homeless" people be allowed to live in such a nice area with good land values from some of the comments I read.

From what I understand, it's not for homeless people it's a building more for seniors who are at risk of being homeless as they find renting a place hard to do with their limited funds/pensions.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by s211

You, sir, are obviously not a progressive.

I wasn't stating an opinion, I was asking a question.
ie as seen with other protests seen in other neighbourhoods

[s211]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I wasn't stating an opinion, I was asking a question.
ie as seen with other protests seen in other neighbourhoods

No offence intended toward you personally, and I apologize for that.

What I won't ever apologize for is exposing the hypocrisy and mountains of BS heaped at us from so-called "progressives".

[cov]

Originally Posted by whatnext

We ban many people from certain areas now because of their incomes. I would much rather the working poor get housing along the Broadway corridor than those who won’t work at all. Why shouldn’t a janitor at UBC or VGH get those homes instead of someone who was doing meth at Oppenheimer Park?

Of course the guy complaining about multifamily housing construction in the westside is also complaining about middle-class being squeezed out of the area. How can life be any more predictable?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I wonder what the redevelopment is going to be, residential? or what? anyone know anything? I heard about this location closing just the other day.

Another chapter is ending in the story of the Vancouver-based White Spot family restaurant chain, as the company prepares to close the doors for good at one of its longstanding locations.

The White Spot at 1126 SE Marine Drive, near Knight Street, will close down permanently on April 10, 2021.

The property has been sold and is slated for redevelopment; a new White Spot is not in the works for the location.

It's a 3-storey wholesale warehouse project called Sunset Industrial Centre. Shato Holdings (White Spot owners) are apparently the developer.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's a 3-storey wholesale warehouse project called Sunset Industrial Centre. Shato Holdings (White Spot owners) are apparently the developer.

TKA+D also designed their new building on the back street from that White Spot. So it looks the same.

http://www.tkad.ca/P-Sherbrook.html

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's a 3-storey wholesale warehouse project called Sunset Industrial Centre. Shato Holdings (White Spot owners) are apparently the developer.

ok thanks for the info.

[kaitoe]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Back in June of 2017 a major fire levelled a row of businesses in Kerrisdale at the corner of W. 41st Ave. and Maple Street.

There is this new proposal now that seems to include (according to the address and the site map) the Salvation Army Thrift store to the west of the empty site and also a three storey newer building with Gem Chocolates and some other businesses.

Jan.28 '21, my pics

The address has been adjusted to end at 2021 West 41st so Gem Chocolates and their building would remain. Only Salvation Army would be demolished

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by kaitoe

The address has been adjusted to end at 2021 West 41st so Gem Chocolates and their building would remain. Only Salvation Army would be demolished

WTF? They're tearing down the best remaining historic character building on the block (which survived the fire) to replace it with one more insipid, cheap, bland, homogeneous chunk of nothingness, even though they have a perfectly good sized empty lot beside it, if only policy allowed greater density through more height? Something is seriously wrong with this city.

[Galaxy]

It really does suck that they are tearing down that building rather than at the very least keeping the facade and even continuing the look to wrap around the corner. The Salvation Army building has the character that is known for so tearing it down is definitely a travesty. If preservation can happen in Gastown why not in a spot like this...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

WTF? They're tearing down the best remaining historic character building on the block (which survived the fire) to replace it with one more insipid, cheap, bland, homogeneous chunk of nothingness, even though they have a perfectly good sized empty lot beside it, if only policy allowed greater density through more height? Something is seriously wrong with this city.

But if the policy allowed greater density through more height, then the land value of the single storey 1949 building would be even greater. Wouldn't it have been replaced even sooner?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Changing City

But if the policy allowed greater density through more height, then the land value of the single storey 1949 building would be even greater. Wouldn't it have been replaced even sooner?

not if it was contingent and keeping the heritage portions. the city has done things like that before.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Changing City

But if the policy allowed greater density through more height, then the land value of the single storey 1949 building would be even greater. Wouldn't it have been replaced even sooner?

But if policy allowed the developer to achieve on the single empty lot what he currently requires both the empty and the occupied lot to achieve, wouldn’t the character building be avoiding the fate it’s facing now?

Or do you think that people generally want to tear down scarce older buildings that give neighbourhoods character and colour when an economically viable alternative can be found?

Greater flexibility allows for more creative solutions.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But if policy allowed the developer to achieve on the single empty lot what he currently requires both the empty and the occupied lot to achieve, wouldn’t the character building be avoiding the fate it’s facing now?

Or do you think that people generally want to tear down scarce older buildings that give neighbourhoods character and colour when an economically viable alternative can be found?

Greater flexibility allows for more creative solutions.

I think you're suggesting that the 1949 structure could become a protected single storey heritage building, and the density that the existing site has could be added to the cleared site. I'm not convinced that the Salvation Army store is a strong candidate for heritage protection, but assuming it is, the developer would want even more density, so you're looking at at least six storeys, and probably more. I doubt if a developer would be keen to add an extra year or two, have to go through a public hearing, and face the anger of the west side for whom five storeys is a tower. There are others who comment here who have much more experience, but I recall a recent comment that after their recent experiences, Bonnis wouldn't want to go through the process they had to with the Hollywood Theatre development.

The problem is, the owner of the site has the right to redevelop something that isn't a heritage building. The City don't have the power to refuse the redevelopment because the existing single storey building has character. They can offer carrots, but in certain contexts like this area, there are lots of people who wouldn't like the package that would produce, and the developer would have to want to do the project. It's a bit like the Winners / Best Buy on Granville - it was a 3 FSR building with no office space on 9 FSR site - a terrible waste of density, but the City couldn't force a better outcome.