Chinatown Updates Discussion

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Why is it still there though? Those reinforcing concrete blocks seem to look new. You would think they would level it like they did with the other half of the street

Also I don't get why in the next block over half the street is closed off for what looks like 3 hydro poles. I know the substation there but it seems a little odd.

Ya, that's what I was getting at. Why have they fixed up the north side of the street for these two blocks but the south side is a total mess?

[a very long weekend]

i wonder when the area will hit the tipping point where calling it "chinatown" just seems strange. it seems like all the main street new construction, inevitably filled with chain shops, will cleave off the western end of chinatown, so that it's folded into the dtes. it's just a matter of turning over the last dozen or so chinese businesses west of main, on pender and keefer. once that's done, chinatown will be the rump between gore and main, hastings and union. already, there are plans to demolish the business-dense building on the corner of gore and hastings, eliminating another 6-10 chinese businesses. that should effectively "clear" hastings out, deleting another half-block of chinatown. union street is almost all done too, just a couple more businesses there.

impressively rapid work turning over a hundred year old neighborhood. in just 10 more years, maybe this will be called something else. rennietown?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

i wonder when the area will hit the tipping point where calling it "chinatown" just seems strange. it seems like all the main street new construction, inevitably filled with chain shops, will cleave off the western end of chinatown, so that it's folded into the dtes. it's just a matter of turning over the last dozen or so chinese businesses west of main, on pender and keefer. once that's done, chinatown will be the rump between gore and main, hastings and union. already, there are plans to demolish the business-dense building on the corner of gore and hastings, eliminating another 6-10 chinese businesses. that should effectively "clear" hastings out, deleting another half-block of chinatown. union street is almost all done too, just a couple more businesses there.

impressively rapid work turning over a hundred year old neighborhood. in just 10 more years, maybe this will be called something else. rennietown?

It'll be Chinatown because of the heritage buildings remaining in the core. If you're talking about Chinese businesses that train left the station a long time ago.

[a very long weekend]

^ well, no. in the rump area, there are many many chinese markets, restos, service shops and offices of all sorts. it's an active cantonese area! it's a great place to do your weekend shopping!

[hollywoodnorth]

I am happy to report that DEMO is underway on the 1 story building at the SW Corner of Gore and Hastings! new rental tower with nice CRU's coming soon!

the old CRU building was a POS. Poorly maintained and what was with the Faux 2nd floor? what a joke.

[hollywoodnorth]

as for a new name for the area I am thinking ... wait for it

MEGGSVILLE in honor of our future mayor/premier/prime minister

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by prometheus

model of the proposal for 288 east hastings (southwest corner of hastings and gore):


source: http://changingcitybook.com/2016/01/27/288-east-hastings-street/

==============

Originally Posted by red-paladin

have we seen this proposal before, and has it been posted?

This is what the corner looks like right now:https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Gore+Av...!1s0x54867171ca66d663:0xb274b0173ccbe615

288 east hastings street

this new proposal for the corner of gore avenue and east hastings is the first to emerge from the downtown eastside plan under the new deod zoning rules that only permit rental housing – and requires 40% of the space to be used for non-market housing.

From: http://changingcitybook.com/2015/10/21/288-east-hastings-street/

==============

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

i am happy to report that demo is underway on the 1 story building at the sw corner of gore and hastings! New rental tower with nice cru's coming soon!

The old cru building was a pos. Poorly maintained and what was with the faux 2nd floor? What a joke.

===============


April 12 '16, my pics

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

April 12 '16, my pics

Don't tell me they are going ahead without that POS 1-storey building with the yellow awning on the right hand side. This is insanity!

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Don't tell me they are going ahead without that POS 1-storey building with the yellow awning on the right hand side. This is insanity!

[This little diatribe is not aimed at you Jimbo604, you just sparked it.]
It's not insanity, it's private property. Neither the wishes of planners nor geeks have any role there.

I took a "Legal Basis of Planning" course many years back at Osgoode Hall - the students were mostly from the UofT planning program and they spent 2 hours one day trying to figure out a way to force owners of empty lots to build buildings on them, buildings of course which the planners thought they also had the right to determine the character, size and use of. I spoke up and told them 1) "you are all crazy, and power hungry, and undemocratic, and 2) "you all need to go read the constitution and the laws of land ownership in Canada." Why do I remember this? Well, its because so many of those people have ended up in the bureaucracies of our municipal governments, creating problems and trying to exercise powers (somewhat successfully) they do not have.

[nefc]

The design for 105 Keefer has been updated, with an open house scheduled for May 16.

https://changingcitybook.com/2016/04/28/105-keefer-street/

Revised Renderings: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plan...efer/documents/05-BuildingRenderings.pdf

Revised Rezoning Application: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/105keefer/index.htm

[logan5]

Why even bother with the chinese writing on the building?

[officedweller]

The previous version was more interesting looking.

[LeftCoaster]

This is certainly a bit of a scale-back from a design standpoint. Disappointing, but the building is still more than acceptable.

[BodomReaper]

I'm still annoyed that we could have had 2 storey retail space as proposed in the initial application - a rarity - but for the city's obsession with coupling subsidized housing with new developments. Gotta soak the evil greedy developers somehow

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

I'm still annoyed that we could have had 2 storey retail space as proposed in the initial application - a rarity - but for the city's obsession with coupling subsidized housing with new developments. Gotta soak the evil greedy developers somehow

But it is the market customer, not the developer, who gets soaked, since it is not the developer who pays for the subsidized housing. The lost income is made up by the remaining market customers in the form of higher market prices (or rents) than those customers would otherwise have had to pay. Hence, mandated subsidized housing equals increasing unaffordability. It is thus the city's so-called "affordable housing" policies that are helping to create unaffordability.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But it is the market customer, not the developer, who gets soaked, since it is not the developer who pays for the subsidized housing. The lost income is made up by the remaining market customers in the form of higher market prices (or rents) than those customers would otherwise have had to pay. Hence, mandated subsidized housing equals increasing unaffordability. It is thus the city's so-called "affordable housing" policies that are helping to create unaffordability.

100% on board with you. The greedy developers comment was just to highlight the premise planners and elected officials use for these sorts of policies. From my experience, their thinking actually is that simple. In a room full of graduate planning students, a developer asked how many had taken any type of economics class at any point in their studies. 2 out of ~50 hands went up. Their economic framework consists of "justice", and the developers are always the bad guys. Concepts like consumer surplus, equilibrium, price mechanisms, are absent from the thought process. The same applies to a couple of Vancouver city Councillors I've spoken with - if you take the discussion in that direction, they respond with hand-waving and return to blathering about developers having to "give back socially", as if only developers and not the actual people being housed benefit from development.

25% subsidized housing with new development is a dystopian and destructive goal - not only in having a large segment of the population living off the backs of others in housing controlled by the state, but in significantly diminishing the land base available to market housing, driving-up its scarcity and contributing to the 'need' for more state housing.

[Vin]

150% agreed!

[WarrenC12]

Units still sell at the margin. If the developer was allowed to build without any subsidized units, the consumers would still be paying the same amount.

[Smooth]

Speaking with someone familiar with the project, they have said the social housing component will add approximately $100 psf to the market units. This is in addition to the other City of Vancouver Development Cost Levies. All those costs are passed directly on to the purchaser.

[a very long weekend]

^ then again, if most people are convinced the buyer is coming from offshore anyway, this policy makes a great deal of sense.