Broadway Corridor Updates - Page 10

Changing City · #**181** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 1:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

They need to work with the neighbouring site to get their optimal designed tower or else they'll be stuck with a narrow tower on the corner of their lot.

It seems like a bit of a mess. In theory the plan only allows one tower on the north side of the 500 block of E 8th, although there can be more on E Broadway. In reality, there's a 6 storey condo building just completing on E Broadway, so there's really only space for one tower. Somehow the larger adjacent lot was accepted as a rezoning in September, with their tower positioned to the east side of their lot.

This site is smaller (arguably too small for a tower), so the less efficient design with less than optimal setbacks is the result. But if the first tower moved their tower further west on the lot, the 25 space childcare would end up sandwiched between two towers, which isn't ideal.

It seems as if the 'first tower on the block gets the prize' hasn't worked here.

jollyburger · #**182** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 2:08 AM**

Seems like they have a project at Maintoba/East 10th as well

Quote:

MANITOBA is ideally situated within the Broadway Corridor, providing convenient access to established neighbourhood amenities, including cafes, restaurants, boutique shops, and convenience stores – and most importantly, a future Skytrain Station. This 18-storey high-rise building will offer approximately 160 purpose-built rental homes located on a tree-lined street. With its captivating architectural design inspired by timeless and classic elements, MANITOBA emphasizes amenity spaces that enhance daily living and foster interaction and integration among residents and the local community. The amenities include co-working spaces, a social lounge, a rooftop outdoor gathering area, and secure ground-level bike storage. The ground plane has been thoughtfully designed to include a linear park connector to Major Matthews Park, seamlessly extending the park to the North Terrace of the building and further promoting integration within the existing community. This thoughtfully planned project provides a diverse selection of homes suitable for all families, delivering rental homes that truly reflect what the market values: livable spaces that optimize natural light, fresh air, and access to outdoor areas and nature.

https://havn-dev.com/developments

Though it seems like that property might be on the market again? $16 million

https://rennie.com/listings/110-w-10...ver-bc-v5y-1r8

officedweller · #**183** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 2:51 AM**

This tower is properly designed for close spacing with another tower
It has small windows on the sides facing other buildings,
and the mid-facade balconies are only on the street-facing side and the other side has the elevator core.

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...et.pdf#page=50

https://vancouvermarket.ca/2023/12/0...pleasant-site/

GenWhy? · #**184** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 3:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

It seems like a bit of a mess. In theory the plan only allows one tower on the north side of the 500 block of E 8th, although there can be more on E Broadway. In reality, there's a 6 storey condo building just completing on E Broadway, so there's really only space for one tower. Somehow the larger adjacent lot was accepted as a rezoning in September, with their tower positioned to the east side of their lot.

This site is smaller (arguably too small for a tower), so the less efficient design with less than optimal setbacks is the result. But if the first tower moved their tower further west on the lot, the 25 space childcare would end up sandwiched between two towers, which isn't ideal.

It seems as if the 'first tower on the block gets the prize' hasn't worked here.

Oh interesting so as these two on the block are currently proposed the 80 foot tower spacing isn't being met?

That's a shame as they both seem such good additions.

city guy · #**185** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 3:53 AM**

the corner arch geometry doesn't match the geometry of repeated arches in the remained of the base so looks incongruent

officedweller · #**186** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 4:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by city guy

the corner arch geometry doesn't match the geometry of repeated arches in the remained of the base so looks incongruent

Agreed. I guess they want to try to open up the corner but it looks odd.

jollyburger · #**187** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 4:48 AM**

I don't know but the street level rendering of that corner doesn't look as odd. I think having that arch that meets both columns looks better than having it suddenly turn into a cut-out with squared off 90 degree corners.

Changing City · #**188** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 5:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Oh interesting so as these two on the block are currently proposed the 80 foot tower spacing isn't being met?

That's a shame as they both seem such good additions.

I think they are 80 feet apart, as illustrated, but the corner building doesn't match the plan's normal setback requirements, and ends up with the less efficient side core arrangement. Obviously the detailed design might change, as this is just the rezoning, but I don't think the plan envisaged two towers, so there's no easy solution (except getting Council to say it's OK). I bet the new owners in Midtown 4, on E Broadway, weren't expecting two towers across the lane!

csbvan · #**189** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 6:41 AM**

Which tower got in first?

city guy · #**190** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 6:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Agreed. I guess they want to try to open up the corner but it looks odd.

I like the idea of the opened up corner but the architects should try to use a similar round-to-tangent geometry in the other arches or change the corner arch to match the rest of them

same architects are doing a similar thing at 854-880 Pandora Av. in Victoria but their arches are more consistent, from what I could see in renders

phesto · #**191** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by csbvan

Which tower got in first?

The mid block one (Fastmark Development) got in first, in part because they were told they could bypass the Letter of Enquiry stage and go straight to rezoning.

It seems as though most developers (or property owners) put in Letters of Enquiry to try to secure their tower rights (apparently 60-70 LOEs were submitted in late 2022), whereas some others were encouraged to go straight to rezoning (more costly, but puts you ahead of LOE).

The City should just relax the tower per block limit...as long as they are getting 80' separation.

GenWhy? · #**192** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

I think they are 80 feet apart, as illustrated, but the corner building doesn't match the plan's normal setback requirements, and ends up with the less efficient side core arrangement. Obviously the detailed design might change, as this is just the rezoning, but I don't think the plan envisaged two towers, so there's no easy solution (except getting Council to say it's OK). I bet the new owners in Midtown 4, on E Broadway, weren't expecting two towers across the lane!

Ah yes that setback. I was looking at the dashed blue line as the new setback line (12' from PL). Will be interesting to watch. The race is not only on to see who gets their rezoning legally ready for enactment 1st, but also to watch the City's "weighting system", as the neighbour's proposal has 25 more units and a daycare.

We've received a few relaxations as far, but nothing this "extreme", and it'll definitely take the call of Council to allow this - which will also be interesting to see.

csbvan · #**193** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 5:51 PM**

Would prefer to see the retail tbh.

GenWhy? · #**194** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

The mid block one (Fastmark Development) got in first, in part because they were told they could bypass the Letter of Enquiry stage and go straight to rezoning.

It seems as though most developers (or property owners) put in Letters of Enquiry to try to secure their tower rights (apparently 60-70 LOEs were submitted in late 2022), whereas some others were encouraged to go straight to rezoning (more costly, but puts you ahead of LOE).

The City should just relax the tower per block limit...as long as they are getting 80' separation.

THE LOE process (how we used it anyway) was an exercise to get a response from Staff on setbacks and other detailed feedback, in writing, that wasn't detailed in the Broadway Plan. Most folks got LOE responses in May, 2023, then I would assume raced with their Architects to address the LOE items and create a feasible, passable, Rezoning application package, which I think the earliest submissions would have been in September / October this year.

The LOE process isn't required and did not secure your site. The "securing" part is still a bit of a mystery to me.

GenWhy? · #**195** Posted **Dec 7, 2023, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by csbvan

Would prefer to see the retail tbh.

Having both the daycare and retail on a quiet bike route would be ideal (though we'll see who wins). I live next to a daycare on a bike route and so many folks ride their kids in those Dutch wagons it's wonderful to see.

logan5 · #**196** Posted **Dec 8, 2023, 1:13 AM**

Very interesting. Allowing 2 towers per block would set a precedent for the rest of Broadway Plan. First the 1 tower per block rule will be axed, next the height restrictions.

csbvan · #**197** Posted **Dec 8, 2023, 8:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Very interesting. Allowing 2 towers per block would set a precedent for the rest of Broadway Plan. First the 1 tower per block rule will be axed, next the height restrictions.

In areas like this, the Broadway Plan already allows much more density than the new provincial TOA legislation (20 storey buildings well outside 200m from the station). The Broadway Plan is brand new and very successful so far. I don't see why Staff would immediately undermine their own plan.

GenWhy? · #**198** Posted **Dec 8, 2023, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Very interesting. Allowing 2 towers per block would set a precedent for the rest of Broadway Plan. First the 1 tower per block rule will be axed, next the height restrictions.

What's weird is this is the only block I've seen so far that only restricts 1 tower on a block "face" so far. Then again I didn't look at every area in the plan. This seems very specific.

All of my sites allow 2 anywhere on the block as long as they are 80 feet apart.

csbvan · #**199** Posted **Dec 8, 2023, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

What's weird is this is the only block I've seen so far that only restricts 1 tower on a block "face" so far. Then again I didn't look at every area in the plan. This seems very specific.

All of my sites allow 2 anywhere on the block as long as they are 80 feet apart.

I believe this is the case for some areas within Fairview, particularly Fairview South, as well.

GenWhy? · #**200** Posted **Dec 8, 2023, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by csbvan

I believe this is the case for some areas within Fairview, particularly Fairview South, as well.

Well that's dumb (not surprised). Christ.