General Vancouver Development Updates II

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Wouldn’t it be great to have the Federal or provincial gov’t come in an get this property for affordable downtown rentals?

I think that would be about $200 million construction + land to build 400 units of rental here.

Then add fees, servicing, soft costs, tenant compensation, etc.

[csbvan]

The Westbank rental building at Broadway and Alma is moving again. When it stalled out it was just about at grade. Now the first story is complete and they're moving on to the second storey above grade. I went by at night so I didn't get a good shot.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by csbvan

The Westbank rental building at Broadway and Alma is moving again. When it stalled out it was just about at grade. Now the first story is complete and they're moving on to the second storey above grade. I went by at night so I didn't get a good shot.

Was there a reason given why work had stopped at B’way and Alma?

[WarrenC12]

Speaking of delays, demolition of the old Park Inn/Fairview Pub seems to have finally started. It had been fenced up for over a year after closing. I thought maybe there was an issue with the Skytrain construction, anybody know what happened?

[madog222]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Speaking of delays, demolition of the old Park Inn/Fairview Pub seems to have finally started. It had been fenced up for over a year after closing. I thought maybe there was an issue with the Skytrain construction, anybody know what happened?

Are you sure? Demo permits aren't issued yet according to the online database. https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=185321116

They say "Permit on hold due to the Broadway Subway Negotiations." I wonder if the BSP has some sort of exclusive/guarantied street use agreement with the City. In this case I wouldn't expect them to start demo until late this year.

[jollyburger]

From the 2019 proposal

1.22 Consideration of design development to accommodate within the building design a
tunnel connection to the future Laurel and Broadway subway station.
Note to Applicant: Legal arrangements may be required, such as amendments to the
Owner’s Works in the Services Agreement and Statutory Rights of Way, subject to
confirmation of final design proposed.
1.23 Provision of letter confirming acknowledgement of Street Use Impacts – Broadway
Corridor, and that the Rapid Transit Office has been contacted for more detailed
information.
Note to Applicant: This application falls within the area with potential impacts due to the
Broadway Subway Project (BSP) construction. From 2019 to 2025, street use along
Broadway and adjacent arterial roads will be significantly restricted; contact the City of
Vancouver Rapid Transit Office ([email protected]) for more information
on potential impacts to access and street use for your project.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20191210/documents/rr4.pdf

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by madog222

Are you sure? Demo permits aren't issued yet according to the online database. https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=185321116

They say "Permit on hold due to the Broadway Subway Negotiations." I wonder if the BSP has some sort of exclusive/guarantied street use agreement with the City. In this case I wouldn't expect them to start demo until late this year.

That's interesting. Scaffolding went up last month, then they sealed it off with plastic. It looks like there's some limited activity there, maybe they are allowed to do some internal work?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's interesting. Scaffolding went up last month, then they sealed it off with plastic. It looks like there's some limited activity there, maybe they are allowed to do some internal work?

Possibly removing any asbestos and internal fittings, without removing the main structure. That could be probably be taken out through the lane, without needing to use West Broadway.

[jollyburger]

Last August

Interior alterations to remove hazardous materials only in this existing Hotel building on this site. No other demolition work is permitted.

Scope of work: Removal of hazardous materials on hotel basement, level 2-5, East office building, liquor store, and bar.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public...ctId=180956058

[madog222]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

From the 2019 proposal

https://council.vancouver.ca/20191210/documents/rr4.pdf

That answers it, thanks for digging it up.

[jollyburger]

Social housing on that corner opposite from Oppenheimer Park currently used for temporary housing.



https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/525-powell-st

[jollyburger]

The first crane has been erected at Arlo!

Standing 138FT tall, this tower crane will play an essential role in progressing construction on-site. Now that it’s up and running, the team will begin the process of waterproofing, along with pouring concrete footings, pads, and columns in the next few weeks.

Huge shoutout to Leavitt Crane, Kansen Crane Service, and OZZ Electric for contributing to a safe and successful crane erection.

Arlo, developed in collaboration with Strand and Locarno Legacy, is a seven-storey wood-frame rental building. With its unique combination of modern design elements and thoughtful amenities, Arlo brings a sought-after urban living experience, offering 100 rental homes and street-level commercial spaces to the Fraserhood community.

• Video Link

https://www.linkedin.com/company/axi.../?feedView=all

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/3231-32...5-685-e-17-ave

DP for this project was submitted last month.

[Feathered Friend]

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/1890-sw-marine-dr


https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/1055-harwood-st


https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/3362-33...3347-clive-ave


https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/32423/w...ocuments/89883

January 23rd, 2024 Public Hearing – Mass Timber Rental Homes Plead For A Holy Relaxation

Public Hearing – January 23rd, 2024 - 6:00pm
With the Jericho Lands Policy Statement scheduled to go before city council this Wednesday, the first public hearing of 2024 might slip under some people’s radar. With over 13,000 homes, a school, hotel, community centre, acres of park space, and so much more planned over a thirty-year time frame, Hannah and I are leaving that subject to the professional journalists. Besides, this meeting is important too, as it’ll decide the fate of over 1,000 rental homes, and a daycare.

Which could explain why the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association has written in to support all of these proposals, well except for Item #1. Maybe that’s just be an oversight, as these 28 rental townhomes are no bigger than the mansions that dominate this part of southwest Vancouver, and have attracted little interest from anyone. Item #2 isn’t going to stand out either, as there’s already been several towers approved on its West End block, including one on this very site.

That 2017 concept has returned with a slightly larger footprint, and a mix of market, and below-market rental homes thanks to an amendment to the community plan. Item #3 is hoping city council allows for even more flexibility in the Joyce-Collingwood Station Precinct Plan in order to create 512 market rental homes, 67 below-market rental homes, and a 37 space daycare facility. That idea has won significant public support, particularly from the homeowners in Joyce Place.

Conversely, it’s Redditors who have been most supportive of Item #4’s goal of transforming a surface parking lot in Mount Pleasant into a mix of market and below-market rental homes. Its critics decry its height, and lack of parking ignoring that both are permitted by the Broadway Plan. Yet, those same guidelines may fill this application full of holes, leading this applicant to take the rare step of asking city council to overturn the conditions of this project’s approval (pg 5).

Backlash Expectations

Item #1 – 1890 Southwest Marine Drive – Very Low
Those who sued to halt a nursing home on this block a decade ago have remained oddly quiet.

Item #2 – 1055 Harwood Street – Very Low
In 2018 a slightly slimmer building of the same height was approved on this site without any issue.

Item #3 – 3352-3386 Vanness Avenue and 3347 Clive Avenue – Low
A critical blogger has tried to convince others to write in, but we know how tough that can be.

Item #4 – 2015 Main Street and 190 East 4th Avenue – Moderate
Its lack of balconies may prove more troublesome than those eager to undo the Broadway Plan

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2024/0...ublic-hearing/

[whatnext]

Re Main St/4th: Balconies are so overrated. It amazes me how many people say they’re a must. Anyone who has lived downtown knows most people maybe pop out onto those balconies a few minutes a week. Sure there’s exception to every rule but given how much they cost to add to a unit, they’re not worth it.

As to the SW Marine townhouses. I’m curious who would actually pay that much to rent a townhouse, they’ll cost a fortune!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Re Main St/4th: Balconies are so overrated. It amazes me how many people say they’re a must. Anyone who has lived downtown knows most people maybe pop out onto those balconies a few minutes a week. Sure there’s exception to every rule but given how much they cost to add to a unit, they’re not worth it.

I love my balcony. The size and shape (for usefulness) was a key feature in my condo purchase. Outdoor space is amazing.

Don't you live in a SFH?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Re Main St/4th: Balconies are so overrated. It amazes me how many people say they’re a must. Anyone who has lived downtown knows most people maybe pop out onto those balconies a few minutes a week. Sure there’s exception to every rule but given how much they cost to add to a unit, they’re not worth it.

As to the SW Marine townhouses. I’m curious who would actually pay that much to rent a townhouse, they’ll cost a fortune!

For the balconies for Main St:

It is both a bit of a slippery slope issue and one of policy / guidelines not keeping up and responding to new energy requirements and building materials. The balcony requirement was added as a response to what many here and in public would call a "shoebox" apartment; however, this was also provided with the outdoor and indoor amenity space requirement (but remember most balconies are covered and outdoor amenities are not. Balconies are private, amenity is not). In the past we had balconies, no amenity area requirement. Now we have both. Are they needed? Questionable. Are there other things like FSR calculations that make design of all these areas suck? Oh ya.

Balconies are not required for social housing, as they still have amenity requirements. Removing the balcony requirement could come with an alternative requirement for a full-height slider window with juliet (common in the West End). Catch would be that "no one" would build balconies anymore depriving apartment dwellers of private outdoor space for minimal savings in construction. However... you could get a more open market. Should there be an exemption to mass timber? Maybe. Do I trust Westbank's argument? No, as they knew full well in advance to provide balconies.

On the Marine Drive townhomes:

Friend of mine rents out a whole house in the city as him and his wife are only here for 4-6 years. It could be torn down any year. He'd love a secured rental townhome. The uncertainty of eviction is intense.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I love my balcony. The size and shape (for usefulness) was a key feature in my condo purchase. Outdoor space is amazing.

Don't you live in a SFH?

Ehh balconies are a lot like gym amenities, some people swear by them, others completely ignore them, developers seem to think they're a value add (otherwise why would every new building have one? There's no requirement.) but are they really? I don't know if I've ever heard anyone complain that their strata gym was overcrowded. Even when it's great weather and a lovely temperature, if you look at the balconies in the city how many people do you really see using them as anything other than storage space?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Ehh balconies are a lot like gym amenities, some people swear by them, others completely ignore them, developers seem to think they're a value add (otherwise why would every new building have one? There's no requirement.) but are they really? I don't know if I've ever heard anyone complain that their strata gym was overcrowded. Even when it's great weather and a lovely temperature, if you look at the balconies in the city how many people do you really see using them as anything other than storage space?

I'm not sure why you're arguing with my personal opinion. It has value to me and I would not have purchased my condo without the balcony, or with a small hardly usable one.

Your anecdotes aside. It's like the people who insist we have an empty condo problem because not everybody has 100% of their lights on.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not sure why you're arguing with my personal opinion. It has value to me and I would not have purchased my condo without the balcony, or with a small hardly usable one.

Your anecdotes aside. It's like the people who insist we have an empty condo problem because not everybody has 100% of their lights on.

It's the requirement for providing balconies, I understand, that is being questioned, not what people desire. Right now balconies and indoor amenities (a gym for example) are required regardless of a tenant or buyers wants.