False Creek South Planning

[officedweller]

They've left a gap in the tall buildings for Charleson Park.
So you won't be getting the high level of shading that you see at Coal Harbour Green Park.

[whatnext]

One thing not noted here is the reduction of non-market and co-op units from 56% of the housing mix to 34%. Sure there is a net gain but it completely the wrong approach. Vancouver doesn't need more market condo buildings. It needs secure rental either guaranteed or owned by the city or another level of gov't. Given what the current residents went though, I don't know why anyone would buy a strata on land with a 60 year lease here.

[GenWhy?]

Not sure what % of each would make this no longer financially feasible, but this % of each housing form is currently feasible as long as large amounts of upper-level funding is handed out.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

One thing not noted here is the reduction of non-market and co-op units from 56% of the housing mix to 34%. Sure there is a net gain but it completely the wrong approach. Vancouver doesn't need more market condo buildings. It needs secure rental either guaranteed or owned by the city or another level of gov't. Given what the current residents went though, I don't know why anyone would buy a strata on land with a 60 year lease here.

False Creek South achieved 34% non-market and co-op housing thanks to massive Provincial and Federal subsidies. Those aren't available any more. To fund secure rental owned by the City (as they are developing across the city today), there has to be a contribution from market housing to pay for it. There's no reason why future market/non market projects in False Creek South will necessarily be leasehold in future; the City could adopt the same approach as they have 601 Beach with a non-market podium and a freehold tower above.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The percentage of stratas actually goes down by one percent - it's market rentals filling the gap, not condos.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

False Creek South achieved 34% non-market and co-op housing thanks to massive Provincial and Federal subsidies. Those aren't available any more. To fund secure rental owned by the City (as they are developing across the city today), there has to be a contribution from market housing to pay for it. There's no reason why future market/non market projects in False Creek South will necessarily be leasehold in future; the City could adopt the same approach as they have 601 Beach with a non-market podium and a freehold tower above.

You’re suggesting the city give up ownership of this valuable land? Why do that. Just use the zoning power the province gave them to create rental only zoning?

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I look it a s site to discuss urban issues, not strictly the fetishization of tall erections.

I mean there's nothing wrong with a healthy fetish, or a nice thick tower, but I understand that sometimes people need to discuss their phobias in order to work through them.

[Feathered Friend]

As part of the city's presentation today, it was revealed that the rail spur, and Charleson road will be eliminated. Instead a "transformed" and widened W 6th Avenue would allow for the streetcar, and more pedestrian friendly elements.

Also of note is that the area's labeled as market rental housing will also provide a spectrum of non-market rate rental homes.

[officedweller]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+6th+...3fbebfc5!8m2!3d49.2665784!4d-123.1622946

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/1448080506902376450?s=20

[Migrant_Coconut]

(narrows eyes) And how do they plan on widening the road that they've just developed on?

[Feathered Friend]

The new developments happen where the rail spur, and Charleson Road are, the leftover land is used to widen W 6th Ave.

[seamusmcduff]

Really? That seems extremely short sighted to develop the rail spur corridor

[officedweller]

Agreed.

Their vision is also to extend all the north-south street across West 6th Ave (the 'no highway' crowd, no doubt).

[Feathered Friend]

Honestly, traffic lights at Oak and West 6th Ave would probably help speed up the flow of traffic. Trying to take a left turn there is brutal, and usually creates a backup.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Really? That seems extremely short sighted to develop the rail spur corridor

If you kept the rail where it was what would you do with the sliver of land on either side? Probably was most efficient to move the rail ROW closer the the street and leave more room for useable space tot he north of the ROW. Not to mention Charleson road. It's a lot of ROW from 6th Ave to Charleson.

[Feathered Friend]

Perhaps the only thing worse than using low income homes as a shield from traffic is to weaponize them to attack affordable housing taller than 3 floors to preserve one’s high land value & private views of Downtown. Found scattered throughout the Fairview Slopes

https://twitter.com/City_Duo/status/1452422045543792645?s=20

[officedweller]

City Council sends False Creek South's future back to the drawing board
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/false-creek-south-vancouver-decision-leases

[whatnext]

View point Vancouver, formerly Price Tags trashed the proposed plan:

False Creek South Shell Game? Report to Council Skips Public Involvement & Process
Written by: Sandy James Planner

If the strategy was to get Vancouver residents rallying for or against redevelopment of housing on city lands, the report on the future of False Creek South presented to Vancouver City Council last week did not disappoint.

The report prepared solely by the City’s Real Estate and Facilities Management and by the Deputy City Manager on “The Future of False Creek South: Advancing a Conceptual Development Plan and Addressing Lease Expiries” brings up more questions than answers.

This plan upsets existing seniors who had hoped to age in place in their older co-op units by proposing to shell game those residents to new proposed locations along Sixth Avenue, and demolishing the existing seaside buildings. Those current 721 units of subsidized housing or co-op housing would be demolished, replaced with more higher income strata and “affordable” rental units creekside which of course would glean the city a better market land rent.

Add in a fifty story tower located near Granville Island, triple densities to a proposed build out of 6,600 units, and what you have is a realtor-like plan which optimizes the City’s leasehold revenue on the 32 hectares (80 acres) of city owned land....

https://viewpointvancouver.ca/2021/10/25...ouncil-skips-public-involvement-process/

[GenWhy?]

I simple summary would be it was transferred from Real Estate to Urban Planning. Real Estate had to make sure it "paid for itself". So I guess Planning will design something that requires some "gifts" either from the City or other levels of gov to supply amenities or affordable housing.

Just oddly handled overall.

[Vin]

This pretty much means one thing: no new developments here.

Message to potential developers: go build somewhere else. We are closed for business.

City: The entitled folks living here need their spaces here without any compromise, and they will live here in perpetuity. We are with them.

Translink: you can forget about the streetcar running through this neighbourhood.