General Vancouver Updates

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Thanks - I forgot the Granville one (although they did say yes second time round). It will indeed be an interesting few months. I wonder if any of those will fail to get considered by this Council, and get held over to the next. I don't keep a count of total units they've approved, but it must be many thousands they've said yes to, and of course anything built to zoning doesn't even reach them. There are some relatively new policies and plans that now allow DP applications where they had to be rezonings in the past, so those are also a policy change that theoretically speeds up development (and makes it cheaper).

Never mind the next council; based on his recent comments, it seems David Eby might have his own plans for the future

As for figures, by our count this council has approved 4,170 strata, 4,926 market rental, 2,005 non-market, 1,375 MIRHPP and 375 senior focused homes. That doesn't include what was approved at the Oakridge Transit Centre.

as per
https://cityduo.wordpress.com/haveyoursay/?frame-nonce=e009fa388b

All that said, I don't think we're the only ones that are happy that, thanks to the recent approval of the streamlined secured rental policy, we will no longer have to write about 6-floor rental buildings on C-2 zoned sites.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

agreed.

we need a unified front to just get these troll losers bounced.

if people would know about the THOUSANDS OF UNITS OF RESIDENTIAL these losers vote against every year they would be outraged.

Vancouver is DIRECTLY less livable and more expensive because of these 3 tards.

Loser Hardwick in just the post above voted no on 3 residential projects. whats that 1000 units right there?

this woman has no soul and is a total douche bag.

is this not the councillor who has said she will vote no on everything unless it affects her DTES riding? If its outside her riding she is opposed.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Whatever you (and Hollywoodnorth) think of their voting record, the current price of housing has nothing whatsoever to do with how these Councillors have voted in past three-and-a-half years on rezoning projects, because the rest of Council (or a majority of them) has approved every single rezoning that has come before Council.

I know where you are going with that. but you are wrong.

with a council not filled with nut jobs ... we could have larger and better proposals come forward.

we all know that things like the BROADWAY SKYTRAIN SAFEWAY project are hampered by the nut jobs. they are the ones who want them scaled down or have more hobo housing included etc. bogging the wheels down.

with a Burnaby style council..........................do you think the Westbank BROADWAY SKYTRAIN SAFEWAY project would be you know less than half the height of whats going up at Metrotown, Lougheed and Brentwood?

so your logic may make sense technically .... buts its not right. as they are preventing HIGH density proposals

also the mayor barely has a majority of non-nutjobs. so for him to aggressively move plans forward he is hampered with these nutters and their ultra left wing/anti progress lunacy.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

your logic may make sense technically .... buts its not right. as they are preventing HIGH density proposals

also the mayor barely has a majority of non-nutjobs. so for him to aggressively move plans forward he is hampered with these nutters and their ultra left wing/anti progress lunacy.

Don't get height and density confused. At 5.7 FSR the East Broadway Safeway project has a greater density than Amazing Brentwood, for example, which will be 5.53 FSR once completed. (That's probably why so many Grandview residents are opposed to it).

Colleen Hardwick voting against, or abstained from development (progressive or not) and Jean Swanson opposing them if they're not 100% core need low rent units are just two votes. They're not stopping anything, if the rest of Council vote to support a project, which almost always, they do. Feathered Friend's data shows that.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Metrotown, Brentwood et al were approved by Derek Corrigan, who is no longer mayor because of them; his replacement, Mike Hurley, got voted in by promising to halt that kind of development. So there's a fair chance that a Burnaby-style council would likely deliver something shorter than 1780 Broadway.

Also, five out of ten Vancouver councillors (including Hardwick) are NPA - the right-wing party. Can't go five minutes without somebody trying to make this a partisan thing.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Metrotown, Brentwood et al were approved by Derek Corrigan, who is no longer mayor because of them; his replacement, Mike Hurley, got voted in by promising to halt that kind of development. So there's a fair chance that a Burnaby-style council would likely deliver something shorter than 1780 Broadway.

Also, five out of ten Vancouver councillors (including Hardwick) are NPA - the right-wing party. Can't go five minutes without somebody trying to make this a partisan thing.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the political spectrum, but only DeGenova is in the NPA now. The others resigned; three are independents (at least for now) and Hardwick has founded TEAM as her own party, with other 'not at all happy with any development' types like Elizabeth Murphy.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Metrotown, Brentwood et al were approved by Derek Corrigan, who is no longer mayor because of them; his replacement, Mike Hurley, got voted in by promising to halt that kind of development. So there's a fair chance that a Burnaby-style council would likely deliver something shorter than 1780 Broadway.

What? Mike Hurley was voted in by promising to protect renters. Not by preventing redevelopment of surface parking lots. I've not seen anything anywhere that would indicate that he's against the type of development happening at Brentwood Mall or Metrotown Mall. Extremely tall developments are still being approved in Burnaby and demovictions are still occurring but renters affected now have to be compensated, relocated, and given the option of returning to the new development at the same rent as their old unit.

• Video Link

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Don't get height and density confused. At 5.7 FSR the East Broadway Safeway project has a greater density than Amazing Brentwood, for example, which will be 5.53 FSR once completed. (That's probably why so many Grandview residents are opposed to it).

Colleen Hardwick voting against, or abstained from development (progressive or not) and Jean Swanson opposing them if they're not 100% core need low rent units are just two votes. They're not stopping anything, if the rest of Council vote to support a project, which almost always, they do. Feathered Friend's data shows that.

Can't use the Amazing Brentwood alone as an example here. This Burnaby project has a large commercial/retail format, unlike the Commercial Safeway project which has relatively very little retail. Should use the entire Brentwood neighbourhood to compare with the entire Commercial neighbourhood. You should know better, and not keep using misleading informaition to prove your point. Height is still proven to provide way more density in suburb town centres than Vancouver's, with the latter just starting to learn and implement.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Whatever you (and Hollywoodnorth) think of their voting record, the current price of housing has nothing whatsoever to do with how these Councillors have voted in past three-and-a-half years on rezoning projects, because the rest of Council (or a majority of them) has approved every single rezoning that has come before Council.

Yeah, approved after 3 or 4 years due to resistance from councillors and NIMBYs that they support, and after millions more are spent to redeisign, as well as downsize densities, not to mention all the time wasted and opportunities lost.

I'm sure these will boost confidence for developers to come build here to help lower housing costs.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Less density... is actually more density... because it's taller? Not sure if that's funny or sad - guess 1780 Broadway should add a spire and get its "density" back.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by vanman

What? Mike Hurley was voted in by promising to protect renters. Not by preventing redevelopment of surface parking lots. I've not seen anything anywhere that would indicate that he's against the type of development happening at Brentwood Mall or Metrotown Mall. Extremely tall developments are still being approved in Burnaby and demovictions are still occurring but renters affected now have to be compensated, relocated, and given the option of returning to the new development at the same rent as their old unit.

They've got a bunch of proposed 70+ towers around Metrotown, sure, but the newer projects are more like Vancouver-scale development. What happens when Burnaby runs out of parking lots? Corrigan would level all of Royal Oak, Hurley, not so much.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yeah, approved after 3 or 4 years due to resistance from councillors and NIMBYs that they support, and after millions more are spent to redeisign, as well as downsize densities, not to mention all the time wasted and opportunities lost.

I'm sure these will boost confidence for developers to come build here to help lower housing costs.

Us developers are getting lots of presents under the tree this year in Vancouver, don't worry - we'll make plenty of money.

[officedweller]

From Lawrence Black twitter Jan 30

1477 West Broadway


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


1790 West 4th
DiLawri Auto


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV


Locarno


https://twitter.com/LawrenceBlackTV

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Can't use the Amazing Brentwood alone as an example here. This Burnaby project has a large commercial/retail format, unlike the Commercial Safeway project which has relatively very little retail. Should use the entire Brentwood neighbourhood to compare with the entire Commercial neighbourhood. You should know better, and not keep using misleading informaition to prove your point. Height is still proven to provide way more density in suburb town centres than Vancouver's, with the latter just starting to learn and implement.

Of course you can compare them. If you didn't realize, I was responding to a comment that suggested the Broadway Safeway had less density than suburban examples. They're both projects on currently underdeveloped retail sites, which propose residential and commercial space next to a station. Brentwood has a bigger site, but despite it's 'look at me' height, it only has 3.4 FSR of residential density (which is what was being referenced) while the Safeway proposal has 4.59 FSR of residential density.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

Can't use the Amazing Brentwood alone as an example here. This Burnaby project has a large commercial/retail format, unlike the Commercial Safeway project which has relatively very little retail. Should use the entire Brentwood neighbourhood to compare with the entire Commercial neighbourhood. You should know better, and not keep using misleading informaition to prove your point. Height is still proven to provide way more density in suburb town centres than Vancouver's, with the latter just starting to learn and implement.

You've got things backwards. Cities like Burnaby are trying to replicate the Vancouver model.

Not sure how you could not be optimistic about what's going to happen along the Broadway Corridor. This is where the next huge building boom in the Lower Mainland is going to happen. Burnaby will keep progressing, but Vancouver is in another league.

[officedweller]

I think the size of the site impacts the open space allocation and the need or desire to cram in density or provide open space.

So I think Brentwood and Lougheed in Burnaby can really only be compared to Oakridge in Vancouver.

For the Commercial and Broadway Safeway site, compare against SOLO District, Madison Centre or Station Square in Burnaby or Safeway at 70th & Granville, King Edward Village, or International Village in Vancouver.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by logan5

You've got things backwards. Cities like Burnaby are trying to replicate the Vancouver model.

Not sure how you could not be optimistic about what's going to happen along the Broadway Corridor. This is where the next huge building boom in the Lower Mainland is going to happen. Burnaby will keep progressing, but Vancouver is in another league.

Not be optimistic? Same reason Eby isn't optimistic. Spending a few billion on a Skytrain and were debating if 20 story rental-residential is too high for the street. Asinine.

Eby said it best;

Or take the case of the Broadway subway line.

The provincial and federal governments are covering most of the cost of the almost $3 billion cost of the SkyTrain extension and construction is underway. But Vancouver has yet to approve the plan to add “thousands and thousands of units” of rental housing along the route.

At this rate, says Eby, “the subway is going to be done before the Broadway corridor plan is approved.”

And that's the problem - there is a little unspoken truth that no one wants to talk about because its fringe for now.

Studies, planning, etc, had a purpose once; collect data so educated decisions can be made on how to most efficiently (however you define efficient) proceed on a given idea.

What this process actually stands for today; stalling. Give politicians the ability to kick the can down the road, not make actual changes that rock the boat, not have to own them. They are a tool of inaction, primarily.

This isn't popular to say because everyone is data obsessed and data driven, but its an unfortunate reality. I'm glad people of Eby's level are finally admitting this is how the "studies and planning process" are used today.

[GenWhy?]

I don't think the Broadway Corridor will take until 2025 to be approved.

[GenWhy?]

I think it's still on track to be approved by Council in May / June this year, same as the Vancouver Plan.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by rofina

Not be optimistic? Same reason Eby isn't optimistic. Spending a few billion on a Skytrain and were debating if 20 story rental-residential is too high for the street. Asinine.

Eby said it best;



And that's the problem - there is a little unspoken truth that no one wants to talk about because its fringe for now.

Studies, planning, etc, had a purpose once; collect data so educated decisions can be made on how to most efficiently (however you define efficient) proceed on a given idea.

What this process actually stands for today; stalling. Give politicians the ability to kick the can down the road, not make actual changes that rock the boat, not have to own them. They are a tool of inaction, primarily.

This isn't popular to say because everyone is data obsessed and data driven, but its an unfortunate reality. I'm glad people of Eby's level are finally admitting this is how the "studies and planning process" are used today.

The plan is almost a done deal.

The plan will allow 20 to 25 story towers in the walk-up apartment areas, with an FSR of 7.5, which is a big leap forward from what exists today. I’m not sure what there is to complain about here, except you could argue for some more height, which in the plan maxes out at 40 stories in the areas around the stations.