Joyce² (5083 Joyce) | 96.1m | 36fl | Completed

[DKaz]

The maximum height in the community plan is based on a tower in a neighbouring city?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by DKaz

The maximum height in the community plan is based on a tower in a neighbouring city?

Yes. And no. The Boot tower set the height of the tallest of the Wall towers across Boundary Road, in Vancouver, at 279 feet tall. The three Joyce towers are each allowed to reach the same geodetic elevation as the tallest Wall tower - so they'll be a bit taller (as the area around the station is down the hill from the Wall buildings) at 290 and 300 feet. Other towers are allowed around Joyce, but to slightly lower elevations as you move away from the station. On the skyline (depending on where you're looking from, obviously) there will two clusters of towers reaching a similar elevation.

[Klazu]

The Boot is a kilometre from these towers and like said, in Burnaby. Vancouver and their silly rules... If all towers in the area will end up roughly the same geodetic elevation, that will make for an ugly table top skyline, one-kilometre wide.

[jollyburger]

And that height is pretty much the height limit for all their "transit-oriented development" except for maybe Oakridge.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Yes. And no. The Boot tower set the height of the tallest of the Wall towers across Boundary Road, in Vancouver, at 279 feet tall. The three Joyce towers are each allowed to reach the same geodetic elevation as the tallest Wall tower - so they'll be a bit taller (as the area around the station is down the hill from the Wall buildings) at 290 and 300 feet. Other towers are allowed around Joyce, but to slightly lower elevations as you move away from the station. On the skyline (depending on where you're looking from, obviously) there will two clusters of towers reaching a similar elevation.

I love your explanations so much - thank you.

They make me dislike planning in this region with a passion.

The education you have given me on this forum is played a non zero part in my decision to leave Vancouver.

Thank you for your service, I mean that honestly.

[Metro-One]

Man, Vancouver is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel for height limiting excuses this time...

Up next will be reducing heights over the fear of hurting clouds.

[Migrant_Coconut]

"All things must come to an end" applies to NIMBYism too - question is whether or not it'll stop before or after we're stuck with another flat skyline.

[osirisboy]

Since we are in a Housing crisis maybe Vancouver should height limits based on what’s most economical and what would produce the most housing at the best cost. Their reasoning is mind boggling to me.

[GenWhy?]

Would be super curious if you could exceed the height limit here under the Below Market Rental Housing Policy for Rezonings... though I doubt any of these players could anyway at what they bought land for / their MO.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Since we are in a Housing crisis maybe Vancouver should height limits based on what’s most economical and what would produce the most housing at the best cost. Their reasoning is mind boggling to me.

the thing is as far a POS like Councilor Adriane Carr is concerned we are NOT IN A HOUSING CRISIS.

she owns her own home and does JUST fine. and gives ZERO about anyone else.

this is evident in her CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO 90% OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

example BROADWAY @ ALMA .... full rental project ACROSS THE STREET FROM A FUTURE SKYTRAIN STATION.

and what does the useless cu*t do .... .??? votes no.

its firmly people like ADRIANE CARR being on council why we are in this mess in the first place.

I bet she votes NO on the current Joyce Rental from Westbank and I bet she votes NOT on the other 2 rezoning.

I put HUGE blame on Federal and Provincial politicians but also MASSIVE BLAME ON PEOPLE LIKE ADRIANE CARR

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

the thing is as far a POS like Councilor Adriane Carr is concerned we are NOT IN A HOUSING CRISIS.

she owns her own home and does JUST fine. and gives ZERO about anyone else.

this is evident in her CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO 90% OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

example BROADWAY @ ALMA .... full rental project ACROSS THE STREET FROM A FUTURE SKYTRAIN STATION.

and what does the useless cu*t do .... .??? votes no.

its firmly people like ADRIANE CARR being on council why we are in this mess in the first place.

I bet she votes NO on the current Joyce Rental from Westbank and I bet she votes NOT on the other 2 rezoning.

I put HUGE blame on Federal and Provincial politicians but also MASSIVE BLAME ON PEOPLE LIKE ADRIANE CARR

It's mostly Stewart and Boyle that vote for more housing and more density, social, market, and otherwise. Greens are mixed but Carr is the worst. Hardwick, Swanson, and some other NPA members often vote against west side density too.

Not sure why you're hyper focused on Carr.

[GenWhy?]

She probably will vote no because she's not a champion of $2,200+ for a 1-bedroom.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

She probably will vote no because she's not a champion of $2,200+ for a 1-bedroom.

The vote on the rezoning was over 6 months ago. It was approved - the motion as amended was put and CARRIED (Vote No. 06456), with Councillors Swanson and Hardwick opposed. So Councillor Carr voted in favour.

And in terms of extra height, they got more than the Joyce Plan indicated. That allows around 300 feet maximum. The original application was for 32 floors of condos and 305 feet. When they switched to rental, they added four floors, with 10 units to be rented at 20% below CMHC. The building will be two storeys higher than the tallest Wall tower, and the floorplates are 7,257 sq ft, so slightly bigger than the Plan suggested.

It's over 16 FSR, which is two or three times what most suburban projects achieve, and a lot more than most Downtown towers as well.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The vote on the rezoning was over 6 months ago. It was approved - the motion as amended was put and CARRIED (Vote No. 06456), with Councillors Swanson and Hardwick opposed. So Councillor Carr voted in favour.

And in terms of extra height, they got more than the Joyce Plan indicated. That allows around 300 feet maximum. The original application was for 32 floors of condos and 305 feet. When they switched to rental, they added four floors, with 10 units to be rented at 20% below CMHC. The building will be two storeys higher than the tallest Wall tower, and the floorplates are 7,257 sq ft, so slightly bigger than the Plan suggested.

It's over 16 FSR, which is two or three times what most suburban projects achieve, and a lot more than most Downtown towers as well.

Rigghht. Time is effed. 2020 still isn't registering for me. I thought this amendment was up this month.

Still if they are allowed 300ft under the plan, I wonder out loud if the BMRHP would've been allowed to give them an extra 3 storeys if they included 20% of units at income-tied below-market rates, even if it went well over the height restriction.

Mainly in response to Oris.

[osirisboy]

That’s all great but not my point. For me, I get frustrated when the city keeps saying housing crisis and then fixates on these bs reasons like a building providing shade for a park and view cones etc.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

That’s all great but not my point. For me, I get frustrated when the city keeps saying housing crisis and then fixates on these bs reasons like a building providing shade for a park and view cones etc.

But it seems to be a mistake to fixate on those two things. There is probably more loss of "housing" due to NIMBYism than view cones/shadowing restrictions.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But it seems to be a mistake to fixate on those two things. There is probably more loss of "housing" due to NIMBYism than view cones/shadowing restrictions.

Agree. But those are examples of ridiculous things the city fixates on. NIMBY are citizens. They are free to do whatever they want. That’s a whole other thing

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Agree. But those are examples of ridiculous things the city fixates on. NIMBY are citizens. They are free to do whatever they want. That’s a whole other thing

I'd disagree on the "fixation", as for if the electorate (usually homeowners with adequate housing) and the elected had focused on affordability in the area plan's update a few years ago, I sense the height limitation might be the same, but the allowance would be for an element of affordability. Fortunately, the market shifted and the city got a rental building with a pittance of affordability rather than investor condos. The area plan update here was a missed opportunity but we got a decent building for those making single wages over $60k and family incomes of maybe $120k.

The investor market is picking back up, unfortunately. Typically a shadow height reduction or viewcone limitation does not impact the city's affordability / housing issues. Zoning, land prices, and construction do, which Council's and the electorate are definitely fixated on, but I digress.

[osirisboy]

Exactly. So instead of the city focusing (fixating) on height reduction and view cones they could focus more on things that will actually help the housing crisis. Again, that’s what my frustration was about. I don’t care about some arbitrary building height.

Sorry, wasnt meant for debate. Just my personal opinion. I know in reality it’s a lot more complicated.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Important to remember that City Hall and its voters are full of both YIMBYs and NIMBYs - for now, these superficial height limits are allowing them to keep growing into suburbistan (the important part of adding supply) without major pushback.