Downtown Vancouver Updates

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I guess you didn't read the article?

I mean, TBF-

It is noted that due to highly restrictive City policies, there are some major challenges with achieving a redevelopment containing such scope and uses to realize the economic and housing benefits, never mind pursuing an even more ambitious project.

The north parcel on West Cordova Street is affected by the existing HA-2 Heritage Policy, which restricts the maximum height of any heritage building to its existing height to a maximum of 75 ft. But the proposed stepped office tower height of up to 149 ft exceeds this height restriction by two times.

We really should revise the Heritage Policy.

Yaletown in particular isn't that important historically, and you should be allowed to build up the the viewcones (at least).

Going up to the viewcones on Gastown in general (rather than 1 or 2 developments) would likely spur large amounts of redevelopment there.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Changing City

None. It was a rather lovely brick building, replaced in 1913 by the Rex Theatre. "In 1959 it was closed to be incorporated into the adjacent Army and Navy store. Sadly, underneath that ‘modern’ metal screen there are no vestiges of the theatre facade – it was replaced with concrete blocks.."

That's too bad, thanks.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

With such short notice, neither of us made it to the event. That said, we know some people who made it down, and they described the attendance as "a lot of people with grey hair."

Here's the project's website (credit to Vancouver is Awesome)
https://www.cohenblock.com/

and the project boards
https://www.cohenblock.com/_files/ugd/fcdb54_816e4190af2f4e8399d44f3c1414b3b2.pdf

Gotta love the plastering of the Cohen and Bosa families all over those, they're the Kennedy's of Vancouver afterall!

[Changing City]

[QUOTE=fredinno;9917496]We really should revise the Heritage Policy. [QUOTE]

It's not necessary. They can already propose a building twice as high as the 75' base height in the policy, with heritage preservation, which is what they've done. That way the important facades get saved.

[QUOTE=fredinno;9917496]Yaletown in particular isn't that important historically, and you should be allowed to build up the the viewcones (at least). there.

It is important historically, and it's only three blocks of two-and-a-half streets (with no lane). Many buildings have already added extra floors.

QUOTE=fredinno;9917496]Going up to the viewcones on Gastown in general (rather than 1 or 2 developments) would likely spur large amounts of redevelopment there.

It's already possible to build higher, but often not practical, or cost effective, which is why only a few developers chose to go high. There are several projects that have been dropped in recent years, or where the developer is just sitting on a permit, but a few buildings have gone ahead like 155 Water (which went over 75' but not to the viewcone). There aren't that many candidates for redevelopment - Army & Navy is the biggest.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

We really should revise the Heritage Policy.

It's not necessary. They can already propose a building twice as high as the 75' base height in the policy, with heritage preservation, which is what they've done. That way the important facades get saved.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yaletown in particular isn't that important historically, and you should be allowed to build up the the viewcones (at least). there.

It is important historically, and it's only three blocks of two-and-a-half streets (with no lane). Many buildings have already added extra floors.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Going up to the viewcones on Gastown in general (rather than 1 or 2 developments) would likely spur large amounts of redevelopment there.

It's already possible to build higher, but often not practical, or cost effective, which is why only a few developers choose to go higher. There are several projects that have been dropped in recent years, or where the developer is just sitting on a permit, but a few buildings have gone ahead like 155 Water (which went over 75' but not to the viewcone). There aren't that many candidates for redevelopment - Army & Navy is the biggest.

[Changing City]

It looks like the Prima Properties tower at the corner of Davie and Burrard isn't starting immediately, despite the Development Application last year. Having trashed the community garden to bring in a testing drilling rig, they've put it all back again.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It looks like the Prima Properties tower at the corner of Davie and Burrard isn't starting immediately, despite the Development Application last year. Having trashed the community garden to bring in a testing drilling rig, they've put it all back again.

Didn't some politician propose getting rid of the stupid community garden tax dodge? If a developer is going to landbank they should at least be taxed at the normal rate.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Didn't some politician propose getting rid of the stupid community garden tax dodge? If a developer is going to landbank they should at least be taxed at the normal rate.

They might have done, but the independent Taxation Authority determine the basis on which a site is assessed, not the City.

Remember when Citygate residents objected to the low valuation of some the NEFC Concord site, only for the Authirity to decide at the appeal that it didn't have any value, and so reduce what little tax Concord paid?

[chowhou]

Is it really so bad if we give a tiny bit of incentive for developers to let temporarily vacant land be useful instead of fencing it up?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Is it really so bad if we give a tiny bit of incentive for developers to let temporarily vacant land be useful instead of fencing it up?

So you think a developer should be given an indefinite tax break for not developing a site? The Shell gas station closed at least 15 years ago, and they put the gardens in by 2009, so they've saved a lot of taxes for doing nothing.

[GenWhy?]

I mean on the flip side... what services have they consumed requiring them to pay more taxes than they currently are?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Is it really so bad if we give a tiny bit of incentive for developers to let temporarily vacant land be useful instead of fencing it up?

The city is effectively paying for the cheaply thrown together park, garden, homeless shelter, etc. through the loss of said tax revenue, it would be best to channel that money into funding our cities instead of effectively giving people who can afford to keep properties vacant even more money.

Even if you do love the cheaply thrown together temporary land use, the province could pass legislation requiring vacant properties to provide those same services if a property is left vacant in an urban area for more than a certain amount of time, among other solutions to supply the same benefits but not have them be a giant tax dodge.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So you think a developer should be given an indefinite tax break for not developing a site? The Shell gas station closed at least 15 years ago, and they put the gardens in by 2009, so they've saved a lot of taxes for doing nothing.

Gas stations are a tough one. I see there is a For Sale sign on the Chevron at Main and East 12th Ave. That will be a prime development spot with the future skytrain coming. I wonder how long it will sit though.

[chowhou]

They're still paying taxes, just at a reduced rate. Is the tax reduction too much? Maybe, maybe not, but either way I think we can agree there's some amount of tax deduction that is worth the cost of activating vacant land. After all, a boarded up vacant lot is a lot worse than a community garden. Tax incentives are typically the easiest and most efficient way to get people to do what you want.

You can think of it as the city renting the land from the owner for a community garden.

Now on the other hand I'm of the opinion that the base land tax rate should be significantly higher and structure wealth taxes should be slashed which would provide a kick in the butt to people holding empty land but I think I've been going on about that too much recently.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's not necessary. They can already propose a building twice as high as the 75' base height in the policy, with heritage preservation, which is what they've done. That way the important facades get saved.



It is important historically, and it's only three blocks of two-and-a-half streets (with no lane). Many buildings have already added extra floors.



It's already possible to build higher, but often not practical, or cost effective, which is why only a few developers choose to go higher. There are several projects that have been dropped in recent years, or where the developer is just sitting on a permit, but a few buildings have gone ahead like 155 Water (which went over 75' but not to the viewcone). There aren't that many candidates for redevelopment - Army & Navy is the biggest.

Looking at both the design guidelines and the District Schedule, 75' seems like the limit, with 1 story being the limit for heritage preservation.
https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/guidelines-ha-2-gastown.pdf
https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/zoning/zoning-by-law-district-schedule-ha-2.pdf

The City can make exceptions, though.

I don't know where you got the idea they can add 75' to a heritage building. I may be missing something.


Most buildings in Gastown are around 6 floors tall.

The south parcel is going to 17 stories, unlike the one you just listed (which, like most Gastown redevelopments, just goes an extra few stories), which would make redevelopment on Gastown much more profitable than right now.


This is the tallest and densest redevelopment in Gastown since Woodward's.
---

Why is Yaletown Historical important? Do we really need to be reminded of its industrial past?


I get the buildings look nice (and it may justify facade preservation for any towers built on top), but it's still prime real estate- those 'few blocks' are the size of Senkaw (about 10,000m2 larger, actually.)

Plus, the area is on top of Yaletown-Roundhouse Station (as well as having great transit access generally).

[officedweller]

The question in both cases (Yaletown and Gastown) would be whether you can preserve character (that's the underlying desire) with higher (and taller) density.
If you look at Yorkville in Toronto, it's just become an area of modern 40 storey towers.
On the other hand, there are a lot of Toronto towers on Yonge or around King St. that have preserved Victorian houses at grade.

[csbvan]

The main question is - why would we redevelop historic buildings in these already dense neighbourhoods when there are so many better opportunities to densify low density areas or underutilized sites? What kind of vision for the city is that? The last places we should be considering demoing are Gastown, Yaletown and Chinatown when we have Kits Point, Arbutus Ridge, or the numerous Skytrain station areas surrounded by low density (Nanaimo, Renfrew, etc).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The question in both cases (Yaletown and Gastown) would be whether you can preserve character (that's the underlying desire) with higher (and taller) density.
If you look at Yorkville in Toronto, it's just become an area of modern 40 storey towers.
On the other hand, there are a lot of Toronto towers on Yonge or around King St. that have preserved Victorian houses at grade.

That's why I proposed keeping the facades.

Also, the Gastown Design Guidelines:

New buildings should not be designed in a pseudo-historic style, replicate existing buildings, or
buildings that once existed, as this erodes the value of authentic heritage buildings. Rather, a
new architectural vocabulary is encouraged that complements the heritage character of original
Gastown buildings. This can be done by respecting and interpreting patterns of massing,
height, fenestration, facade proportions and organization, materials and colour in the prevailing
character of significant buildings in the area. Non-architectural elements such as signs,
awnings, canopies and sidewalk displays can further enhance the character and interest of the
area.
Of particular importance is the conservation principle which addresses how to achieve a
balance between the compatibility of new work and its distinguishability from authentic
heritage fabric. Understanding this balance can lead to sympathetic and creative design
solutions which strengthen and enrich the heritage character of the area.

Most of the lots in Gastown already have buildings on them that are considered historical, with a few large exceptions like the Gastown parkade.

Originally Posted by csbvan

The main question is - why would we redevelop historic buildings in these already dense neighbourhoods when there are so many better opportunities to densify low density areas or underutilized sites? What kind of vision for the city is that? The last places we should be considering demoing are Gastown, Yaletown and Chinatown when we have Kits Point, Arbutus Ridge, or the numerous Skytrain station areas surrounded by low density (Nanaimo, Renfrew, etc).

Because the two aren't mutually exclusive?

The City is already considering rezoning the Granville Entertainment District.

This is Downtown, not a suburban town center.


Kits Point and Arbutus Ridge aren't easily accessible by transit services (other than 1 or 2 major bus lines).

Areas like Renfrew and Joyce-Collingwood already have their own plans and are being densified (some less than others - looks like the NIMBYs will win out at Nanaimo and Commerical-Broadway).


Yaletown Historical is literally encircled by downtown.

Also, Gastown is on the fringe of the DTES (and right next to the CMB). The goal of all the redevelopment plans (as in Chinatown, which has stalled largely due to NIMBY opposition) is/was intended to 'push' out the DTES away via gentrification.

[csbvan]

Ah yes, nothing says suburban like a heritage district surrounded by density. For example, the suburban area of Old Montreal, and suburban French Quarter in New Orleans . We have one of the densest downtowns in North America and lots of low density, transit-oriented areas outside it. We're not at the last resort where we bulldoze the areas of historic importance. There are thousands of acres of well-connected neighbourhoods that need to densify first. Decades and decades worth.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Why is Yaletown Historical important? Do we really need to be reminded of its industrial past?

Why is Fort Langley historically important? Do we really need to be reminded of the fur trade? It's not as if it's even located where the first fort was built, and only one of the buildings is original, the rest are all reproductions. That whole block could be townhouses, or maybe a mix of condo and townhouse, and just keep the one old building.