General Vancouver Updates

[madog222]

nvm, I see that its a rezoning.

[giallo]

I had no idea about this one. Very nice.

[Feathered Friend]

When we saw this model in a West Broadway storefront, we assumed it would offer rental homes. Instead, this office building will grow BC’s 2nd largest employment centre, & replaces a car dealership a block from the future Granville SkyTrain station.

Whether you want to support the creation of new job space, offer constructive criticism, or just hope to learn more, you can do so at the link below.
https://shapeyourcity.ca/1395-w-broadway?tool=survey_tool&tool_id=feedback#tool_tab

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/1411123805917835269?s=20

Thanks Changing City for alerting us to the application, and for forcing us to write this up sooner than we planned

[jollyburger]

They're calling it FairView (sp?) Tower Images won't load, click the projects link to view.

And there's another Broadway project in the pipeline. Residential called City Star at 1318 West Broadway (?)

http://yuanheng.ca/en/projects/

EDIT: That model in the back of Feathered Friend's photo is City Star I think.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

They're calling it FairView (sp?) Tower Images won't load, click the projects link to view.

And there's another Broadway project in the pipeline. Residential called City Star at 1318 West Broadway (?)

http://yuanheng.ca/en/projects/

EDIT: That model in the back of Feathered Friend's photo is City Star I think.

Here's the CityStar rendering - across from the TransMountain Building:


http://yuanheng.ca/en/projects/

[Feathered Friend]

Oops, I've been beaten to the punch

[Vancouver_Highrise]

Cue the nimbys.. 1… 2… 3… but seriously this will bring a lot of foot traffic with the upcoming skytrain station. Not complaining at all about the height and design

[logan5]

Does this go to the height limit. I assume there is one. (Talking about the office tower)

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

Cue the nimbys.. 1… 2… 3… but seriously this will bring a lot of foot traffic with the upcoming skytrain station. Not complaining at all about the height and design

Yeah I like it and Broadway needs more of this, but I can hear the NIMBY screaming already. Great proximity to the new station on Granville.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

Cue the nimbys.. 1… 2… 3… but seriously this will bring a lot of foot traffic with the upcoming skytrain station. Not complaining at all about the height and design

most comments i've seen seemed ok with it but one commenter said it was overpriced BS, he must have assumed it was condos without reading that it was actually an office building.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by logan5

Does this go to the height limit. I assume there is one. (Talking about the office tower)

There are no viewcones or viewcone restrictions in that location.

There's some concern about shadow casting on a residential park just slightly to the north east of the site, but as that park is significantly downslope from this site, no amount of height trimming will mitigate shadowing from it.

But you can still expect some of the usual NIMBY-ism backlash.


As for actual height limit for this site, I don't believe they're building it to the maximum height allowed.
The residential development farther up the street on Birch and W. Broadway recently applied for (and got) a height increase for their development from 15 storeys to 28 storeys which will make it the tallest tower in the area until this office is built, and the South Granville station office building, though only getting built up to 5 or 6 storeys tall now, is understood that at some point in the future they will come back to apply for an extension for an office tower for upwards of 350 feet tall.

All of which is to long-windedly say that I don't believe height restrictions are necessarily an issue for the city at this location currently.

It's probably the developer's call to not build it up to the max they can get (or even apply for taller) at this point.
(Return-on-investment, NIMBY concerns,....and all that).


EDIT :
I just saw from the report that they are in fact building it to the maximum height allowed for the site (300')...
.....with a 15' relaxation for the crown above.

So ignore everything I said prior.

[officedweller]

Joie

From Lawrence Black twitter July 4:


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV

[officedweller]

This one is quite visible now driving south over Cambie Bridge.

425 West 6th

From Lawrence Black twitter July 4th:


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV

[officedweller]

CityLink

From Lawrence Black twitter July 4th:


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV

[Feathered Friend]

July 6th, 2021 Public Hearing – Decades Old Fears Threaten West End Community Pride While East Van Rental Homes Undergo A Green Revolution
Public Hearing – July 6th, 2021

I think Hannah would laugh at anyone that would call me an optimist, but I do believe that though the arc of the moral universe is long, it bends towards justice. Lately, there are many reasons to doubt that, as last month a small addition to a public school triggered roughly seven hours of vitriol (credit to the live tweeters). Fortunately, our expectation is this event will show that time can breed understanding, and allow most wounds to heal.

After all, a decade ago the Cambie Corridor plan left single-family homeowners fuming, yet today the townhouses in Item #2 barely merit mention. Item #4 is similarly a more procedural matter, as it corrects some spelling, and similar errors in a few bylaws. That doesn’t mean one can just sit back and let things happen, which is why Item #1 adjusts the fees the city charges developers to reflect the rate of inflation.

It probably won’t draw any attention either, but Item #3 demonstrates why that’s significant . That’s because this modest strata building near the largely vacant Little Mountain Lands will actually help fund the rebirth of social housing there. Some will argue Item #5 shows things are getting worse, as we’re aware of a petition that was circulating against this West End proposal over fears about who could live here.

The stigma against victims of the forgotten pandemic has passed, yet the efforts of QMUNITY shows how a better understanding can grow acceptance. Item #6 is a perfect example of that, as six year ago a similar six floor rental project across the street faced dozens of opposition letters (pg 34), yet today the response has been far more welcoming. That said, one local group is upset its name doesn’t reflect its location on an arterial road, so while we’re grateful the weather has cooled down, there may be heated days to come.

Backlash Expectations

Item #3 – 5107-5119 Main St & 196 E 35th Ave – Very Low
As this scale is common to the area, there’s been virtually no interest of any kind

Item #5 – 1190 Burrard St– Low
Fear can drive people to do funny things, but it has subsided since the 1980s

Item #6 – 1405 E 15th Ave & 3047-3071 Maddams St – Moderate
Will the dozens who opposed a similar building across the street in 2014 return? We doubt it

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2021/07/05...rental-homes-undergo-a-green-revolution/

[rofina]

I cant help but harp on this; what's left of those "heritage" homes is embarrassing.
Can someone who is a supporter of this type of heritage preservation explain to me the value in keeping a few old wood sticks and calling it heritage preservation? Seems insulting to me this would be called preservation.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by rofina

I cant help but harp on this; what's left of those "heritage" homes is embarrassing.
Can someone who is a supporter of this type of heritage preservation explain to me the value in keeping a few old wood sticks and calling it heritage preservation? Seems insulting to me this would be called preservation.

Lol I thought that too.

Is this even preservation anymore? The houses are going to have to be completely retrofitted anyways .

[rofina]

Originally Posted by scryer

Lol I thought that too.

Is this even preservation anymore? The houses are going to have to be completely retrofitted anyways .

Exactly - the primary character in heritage would be the exterior finish, cedar shake patterns I imagine, stained glass, along with any neat plaster details on the interior.

It seems anything of the character that would be worth preserving has already been lost.

I don't mean to hate on the idea of preservation, but this seems pretty absurd to me. Its not rooted in reality.

[s211]

Originally Posted by rofina

I cant help but harp on this; what's left of those "heritage" homes is embarrassing.
Can someone who is a supporter of this type of heritage preservation explain to me the value in keeping a few old wood sticks and calling it heritage preservation? Seems insulting to me this would be called preservation.

This situation is textbook bureaucrat bullheadedness. And yet the city will commission Coriolis reports all day long that say their policies are not to blame for ever-rising development costs.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

Lol I thought that too.

Is this even preservation anymore? The houses are going to have to be completely retrofitted anyways .

Originally Posted by rofina

Exactly - the primary character in heritage would be the exterior finish, cedar shake patterns I imagine, stained glass, along with any neat plaster details on the interior.

It seems anything of the character that would be worth preserving has already been lost.

I don't mean to hate on the idea of preservation, but this seems pretty absurd to me. Its not rooted in reality.

If it makes the dinosaurs on the Commission happy and lets the thing proceed, I say go for it.