Development of Heritage Neighborhoods (Granville, Yaletown, Chinatown, etc.)

[Changing City]

0

Originally Posted by chowhou

It really bothers me when people appreciate what previous generations built but are completely unwilling to make the same sacrifices or look to the future. Why do you think the buildings you currently love and appreciate so much were able to be built? Do you think nothing was there before? Yes, there are certainly other areas of the city that are clearly due for development far before Yaletown, but if you admit that eventually Yaletown would be on the chopping block, why are we being so conservative and saying "we need to keep things the way they are right now as long as possible"?

You've already clarified that you don't see any justification in retaining even heritage facades, so you're just reiterating your view that there's no value in retaining any heritage buildings, or neighbourhoods. As the rest of Downtown and the West End density further, I can see the few areas with heritage precincts becoming more appreciated and improved at street level for pedestrian activity. Wider sidewalks, less through-traffic, more patios, better transit.

I don't think Yaletown will eventually need to be redeveloped in a way that would leave the odd facade, and add a collection of towers on top. I can see it adding a little more density with additional floors on the few buildings that haven't been updated.

Similarly, I'd expect more 10(ish) storey buildings in the DTES in Victory Square (which is oddly, not on the list), and Gastown (or even higher for large rental buildings like Army & Navy). That's the sort of change that's been adding population, seismically updating heritage structures, and retaining the overall character of the areas. I think Chinatown will see building up to maybe 8 storeys, like Sparrow, currently building on Keefer. I wouldn't expect towers, because there are dozens more that could be built Downtown and in the West End in places that don't have character or history worth preserving, and hundreds more in the rest of the city.

Your comments suggest you don't appreciate area, or building character, or history. Fredinno seems to hold a similar view. Several of us have explained why the character and history of a few small areas of Downtown are, in our view, worth preserving and enhancing. All you respond is 'or we could just tear it down'. There's nothing to debate really. Some of us like those areas, and buildings, and you don't care, and think something else would be better.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We’re talking past each other. Far as I’m concerned, you want to cross that bridge sooner, NIMBYs want it crossed later; I want it crossed when we get there, no sooner, no later. Again, it's like the viewcones - rezoning six and a half blocks is hardly going to make the same dent in overall supply that rezoning two-thirds of the city would (and is very likely going to splinter the urbanist bloc).

Also bear in mind that unless efforts are made to keep the types of commercial/retail units that attract hipster/indie venues - in which case you’re basically keeping most of the building - there’s a 90% chance the breweries, butchers and art studios turn into Starbucks and Lululemon with a few sushi places thrown in; I'd consider that a net loss for every generation.

I too think we should cross the bridge when we get there, so why are we so scared of seeing if we're there yet or not? If we went full crazy laissez-faire anarcho-capitalist and removed all regulations everywhere, do you think that Yaletown would see towers first or the Southlands? I'm not advocating for that, but to say that Yaletown is even close to as dense as what the market would demand is kind of silly to me.

Some would say that losing the rail terminals, cement plants, and sawmills in False Creek was a net loss for every generation, some would say that losing affordability in the city is a net loss for every generation, some would say that losing SFHs in Vancouver would be a net loss for every generation, some would say that expanding port facilities at the expense of the environment is a net loss for every generation, some would say that building bike lanes everywhere and blocking people the freedom to drive is a net loss for every generation, some would say that allowing people to immigrate and push out the "old stock Canadians" is a net loss for every generation, why is Luigi & Sons suddenly something that now needs to legislatively be protected forever? Some things are worth saving and some things we can let go. I don't really think there's anything in Yaletown that is so precious to society that we can't let it go.

I would hardly consider Yaletown any more friendly to breweries, butchers, and art studios than anywhere else in downtown. I'm not sure if you've been to Yaletown anytime recently but it's not "hipsters" and "indie folk" that are buying dry aged steaks from Luigi & Sons.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Your comments suggest you don't appreciate area, or building character, or history.

I appreciate history, and that's why we have historians and history books to document it. Does it bother you when we remove statues of historical figures or rename elementary schools? There are a lot people that like them and think you're erasing history by changing them.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by djh

But seriously, why?

Why should all of the places that have a particular "character" have the thing that gives them character removed?

Think of your first (architectural) mental picture of many cities around the world - London, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Mexico City, Taipei, Dubai, Cairo, Brisbane...if the excuse is "we need to add more people to these cities", would you pick the exact places that came into your mind just now and rip them up to make taller towers? Wouldn't you instead pick places that had NO character - the boring, soulless, low-interest and low-historical value areas, and build better buildings there? There are swathes of SFH 2 storey Vancouver Special rental homes lining arterials and near transit that are scattered all over the city; those neighbourhoods could be bulldozed overnight and replaced with towers and nobody would miss the rental homes. Start there.

I think for Vancouver, there are lots of areas that are not that special, that could do with their density increased to 25 floors, way before we start ripping up the neighbourhoods that already are interesting, just so we can add more people to them. Adding density is not idea for every spot on the map, as it 100% changes the - yes, character - of a place, in good and bad ways. So the thing that you liked about an area will definitely change, quite possibly lost.

On that list above,

Correct, they should expend into characterless neighbourhoods and improve those already with the nice "character" by building more of the similar but more daring projects. Other neighbourhoods with lousy "character" can be bulldozed for all I care. Examples are Kitsilano (higher density area), majority of West End, Broadway corridor, and pretty much anywhere outside downtown Vancouver, within the boundaries of Vancouver.

[chowhou]

It really bothers me that we're wheeling out the same NIMBY arguments you hear over and over again in defense of the part of the city you personally like. How can you possibly argue against a West Side NIMBY who wants to preserve the SFH area and historic character of their favourite neighborhood? If you redevelop it, you'll be destroying a suburban lifestyle that's never coming back. Does that not bother you? It bothers me.

[seamusmcduff]

The warehouse portion of Yaletown is approximately 0.06 sq km in area, and as mentioned has FARs of 3.5-4 throughout. 70% of Vancouvers land (115 sq km) is zoned single family and has FARs less than 1.

Vancouver has very few neighbourhoods with distinct and unique characteristics that people enjoy visiting largely due to the character that the existing buildings and their form create. These buildings already utilize their lots extremely well, so why would we focus development in this area when there's literally dozens of sq km. of non descript SF areas that are underutilized?

I agree that when it makes sense, development could occur here to bring up the FAR even more, but we are a long, long, long way from there. In my opinion, the only reason developing Yaletown is even an attractive option in the first place is that we've protected our Single Family neighbourhoods so much that any place that isn't single family becomes an attractive place to development, even with marginal FAR returns.

Protecting SF areas has led to additional development pressures on places like Gastown and Yaletown that wouldn't be there if more areas around the City were allowed to go to higher densities. When there's no SF homes around, it also means far less public opposition.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, it's a little weird that we have to cannibalize every piece of downtown before we can even lift a finger against suburbistan.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I too think we should cross the bridge when we get there, so why are we so scared of seeing if we're there yet or not? If we went full crazy laissez-faire anarcho-capitalist and removed all regulations everywhere, do you think that Yaletown would see towers first or the Southlands? I'm not advocating for that, but to say that Yaletown is even close to as dense as what the market would demand is kind of silly to me.

Some would say that losing the rail terminals, cement plants, and sawmills in False Creek was a net loss for every generation, some would say that losing affordability in the city is a net loss for every generation, some would say that losing SFHs in Vancouver would be a net loss for every generation, some would say that expanding port facilities at the expense of the environment is a net loss for every generation, some would say that building bike lanes everywhere and blocking people the freedom to drive is a net loss for every generation, some would say that allowing people to immigrate and push out the "old stock Canadians" is a net loss for every generation, why is Luigi & Sons suddenly something that now needs to legislatively be protected forever? Some things are worth saving and some things we can let go. I don't really think there's anything in Yaletown that is so precious to society that we can't let it go.

I would hardly consider Yaletown any more friendly to breweries, butchers, and art studios than anywhere else in downtown. I'm not sure if you've been to Yaletown anytime recently but it's not "hipsters" and "indie folk" that are buying dry aged steaks from Luigi & Sons...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Heavy industry didn't work anymore, we got rid of it... SFHs, cars and Roberts Bank aren't working, we're getting rid of those... but we're nowhere near the point where historic Yaletown likewise doesn't work for Vancouver.
We do sometimes redevelop commercial areas because they're dead or dying and need an adrenaline shot... this one is clearly neither of those. Same reason Metrotown hasn't been gutted yet.

Not irreplaceable, but definitely unique - walk literally one block down the street, suddenly it turns into Fresh Slice and Subway, or nothing at all (i.e. residential-only). The only other places where I see these kinds of venues all next to each other are Gastown and OV... coincidentally, in all the older brick buildings. There may come a time when it goes the same way as The Post or The Bay, but the only reason we're even considering that for the area Right This Instant is because the rest of the city is untouchable.

Originally Posted by chowhou

It really bothers me that we're wheeling out the same NIMBY arguments you hear over and over again in defense of the part of the city you personally like. How can you possibly argue against a West Side NIMBY who wants to preserve the SFH area and historic character of their favourite neighborhood? If you redevelop it, you'll be destroying a suburban lifestyle that's never coming back. Does that not bother you? It bothers me.

It bothers me that it's either towers or suburbs, nothing in between. Historic Yaletown would appear to be the very definition of "missing middle."

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Heavy industry didn't work anymore, we got rid of it... SFHs, cars and Roberts Bank aren't working, we're getting rid of those... but we're nowhere near the point where historic Yaletown likewise doesn't work for Vancouver.
We do sometimes redevelop commercial areas because they're dead or dying and need an adrenaline shot... this one is clearly neither of those. Same reason Metrotown hasn't been gutted yet.

Not irreplaceable, but definitely unique - walk literally one block down the street, suddenly it turns into Fresh Slice and Subway. The only other places where I see these kinds of venues all next to each other are Gastown and OV... coincidentally, in all the older brick buildings.

Do we really need to wait for an area of the city to be dying before allowing development?

You know there's a Subway in Yaletown in an older brick building at Mainland and Nelson, right? I feel like you have a bit of a confirmation bias here, most of Yaletown is trendy upscale restaurants, banks, and a bunch of sushi restaurants. Nothing you wouldn't see elsewhere downtown.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It bothers me that it's either towers or suburbs, nothing in between. Historic Yaletown would appear to be the very definition of "missing middle."

As always, I agree with that. So how can you not agree with what I said?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Why replace something that's doing well, and ahead of something that isn't? And how many breweries or butchers are in new buildings, or banks in old ones? I'll concede the sushi.

Because what you said contradicts what I said. Develop the warehouses any further, and it's most likely not Missing Middle at all - now it's midrises and highrises.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It really bothers me that we're wheeling out the same NIMBY arguments you hear over and over again in defense of the part of the city you personally like. How can you possibly argue against a West Side NIMBY who wants to preserve the SFH area and historic character of their favourite neighborhood? If you redevelop it, you'll be destroying a suburban lifestyle that's never coming back. Does that not bother you? It bothers me.

If developers were legally allowed to build similar mixed-use, off-arterial, dense buidlngs, and they were underway, inhabited and tenanted in various parts of the City... then I'd probably be okay with some facadism.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Why replace something that's doing well, and ahead of something that isn't? And how many butcher shops are in brand-new buildings, or banks in old ones? I'll concede the sushi.

Because what you said contradicts what I said. Develop the warehouses any further, and it's most likely not Missing Middle at all - now it's midrises and highrises.

RBC, TD, Scotiabank, and CIBC are all in Yaletown. (Technically RBC isn't in the protected region, but I'm sure you'd want that building protected too.)

So how can you argue against suburban NIMBYs using the exact same arguments, then?

"We shouldn't develop the SFH parts of the city any further because we are losing the character of the neighbourhood and the lifestyle we are used to. Introducing density anywhere defeats the purpose of SFH neighbourhoods. If I look in the densified parts of the city, I never see gas stations, grocery stores with enough parking, or parks safe from 'undesirables' anymore. Yes, we can adapt a little, but if we allow development in the SFH parts of Vancouver there eventually won't be anywhere for families who want a yard. So much for missing middle, what about missing single family homes? There is plenty of land in Langley and Abbotsford that isn't developed yet, please develop there first."

What's your counter?

[GenWhy?]

When West Side NIMBYs are okay with homes in Point Grey being converted to shops, offices, backyard apartment infill with house retention... then I'll listen. Very similar to former warehouse conversion and redevelopment opportunities

[Migrant_Coconut]

The math no longer makes sense for residential-only SFH neighbourhoods, which are usually far from active most of the year. I fail to see how any of the terms in that sentence apply to Yaletown's warehouses.

If vibrancy and higher density than the rest of the city aren't enough, maybe Olympic Village should be up for a rezoning too?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The math no longer makes sense for residential-only SFH neighbourhoods, which are usually far from active most of the year. I fail to see how either of those two statements apply to Yaletown's warehouses.

If vibrancy and higher density than the rest of the city aren't enough, maybe Olympic Village should be up for a rezoning too?

It doesn't sound like you care about the character preservation or heritage at all then, just whether it's "sufficiently used" right now. By this logic all of dead and/or dying Chinatown should be open for redevelopment (agreed) and literally nothing should be allowed to be built on Granville (can't agree), right?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Actually, Granville Mall south of Nelson is kind of a dump, which is why it's slowly getting redevelopment proposals as we speak; Granville north of Nelson is already densifying, and I've stated my approval of the Bonnis building. Ditto South Granville: the Kaplan sign, clock tower and Stanley Theatre are probably staying, but the rest is up for grabs; the only building I kinda-sorta thought looked nice is long gone by now, so whatever.

Chinatown? Go nuts - maybe keep some of the exteriors, but what I've heard indicates that most interiors are probably beyond saving at this point. Maybe save Phnom Penh for last, though.

Originally Posted by chowhou

It doesn't sound like you care about the character preservation or heritage at all then, just whether it's "sufficiently used" right now...

Pretty much. Like I said, one can easily make a Bay or Post out of any of them... but different tenants like different types of units, so I'd like similar-sized/shaped units so that we get similar venues and businesses moving back in.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Pretty much. Like I said, one can easily make a Bay or Post out of any of them... but different tenants like different types of units, so I'd like similar-sized/shaped units so that we get similar venues and businesses moving back in.

So in other words, if a developer bought 1140 Homer and wanted to tear it down and build the exact same floor plan with 24 extra stories of office space above, you'd be amenable to that idea? No change of use down below, the same "funky/trendy/kooky" office space, and a completely new structure matching the aesthetic requirements.

[Migrant_Coconut]

If an Alien Space Bat swoops down and makes all three possible (because a human developer most likely won't)? Go for it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If an Alien Space Bat swoops down and makes all three possible (because a human developer most likely won't)? Go for it.

So why not just up the FSR allowed in Yaletown then? All the other requirements are there. (FYI 1140 Homer is a heritage building, but it doesn't look any different from the buildings around it.)

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

So in other words, if a developer bought 1140 Homer and wanted to tear it down and build the exact same floor plan with 24 extra stories of office space above, you'd be amenable to that idea? No change of use down below, the same "funky/trendy/kooky" office space, and a completely new structure matching the aesthetic requirements.

The parkade structure and access ramp, loading bay, garbage room access, bike elevator access, fire escape additions, you'd have to place on Hamilton St.

You either kill Hamilton (the defacto lane) as a pedestrian-patio street or you turn Homer into the lane.

[Migrant_Coconut]

And you're not guaranteed to get 1140 Homer by bulk rezoning the whole neighbourhood - developers will likely all make a beeline for Hamilton (which doesn't necessarily have the same protections) because that's where all the demand is, and then there goes business for the strip for 3-5 years of construction and another 3-5 while they lure customers back. In this case, spot zoning with conditions works better.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The parkade structure and access ramp, loading bay, garbage room access, bike elevator access, fire escape additions, you'd have to place on Hamilton St.

You either kill Hamilton (the defacto lane) as a pedestrian-patio street or you turn Homer into the lane.

Ah, the age old NIMBY "but the infrastructure can't support new development" and "where will people park" arguments.

Guess there's no winning.