Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[whatnext]

Took some pics around Shannon Mews. I'm still not happy we lost the Erickson designed apartments, but the design of the new development seems miles better than anything going up along Cambie. The scale of the development is pretty cool and unexpected. I didn't realize there was a park. Sad to see a new SFH going in across the street.

[IMG]IMG_5006 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]IMG_5009 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]
IMG_5005 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]IMG_5008 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]IMG_5004 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]IMG_5002 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]


Holdovers from a previous era, no sidewalks immediately west on the next block and someone building a new SFH across the street (really?)

[IMG]IMG_5013 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]IMG_5015 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

all pics by me

[csbvan]

Vancouver McMansions are the tackiest McMansions...

[SpongeG]

they are building townhouses though along granville. I like that you can see the Mansion really easily now from 57th.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Vancouver McMansions are the tackiest McMansions...

It's not so much the banal pretentiousness of it, as the ridiculousness of still allowing this kind of home to be built right across from new density. We need Minimum Zoning rules!

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Vancouver McMansions are the tackiest McMansions...

You think that's tacky?? You live a very sheltered life lol

I think this one is done well, with quality materials and not cheap stucco and vinyl siding.

Yeah it's ridiculous that sfh here is allowed. This is where the townhouses that they are building on Granville and oak would be better

[Vin]

Quite a nice looking "mansion": much better than a Vancouver Special, although I like to see land assembly of that neighbourhood to complement what is happening at the Shannon Estate, which is what Vancouver should be trying to achieve, especially for lots close to the arterial roads.

The name of the park is horrible though: New Park? What if one day it becomes much older? Also, I'm pretty sure those entitled elderly NIMBYs who opposed this development will go make use of the nice park facilities there.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

The name of the park is horrible though: New Park? What if one day it becomes much older? Also, I'm pretty sure those entitled elderly NIMBYs who opposed this development will go make use of the nice park facilities there.

That's all included in the rezoning report. It's going to be called 'New Park' until the end of 2018, then for another two years after that it becomes 'Not so New Park', and for four years after that it's renamed as 'Really Not that New at all Park', and then finally on 1 April 2025 it's renamed as 'Shannon Mews Park'.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's all included in the rezoning report. It's going to be called 'New Park' until the end of 2018, then for another two years after that it becomes 'Not so New Park', and for four years after that it's renamed as 'Really Not that New at all Park', and then finally on 1 April 2025 it's renamed as 'Shannon Mews Park'.

The most original park name was the one called "Dude Chilling Park" at Mount Pleasant.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

they are building townhouses though along granville. I like that you can see the Mansion really easily now from 57th.

Yep, here's a shot of Maisonette on Granville. OK if you like florid historicism, and I'm sure the target market eats it up. Over $2 million to live in multifamily a few feet off the traffic of Granville Street, no thanks.

[IMG]IMG_5001 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[BodomReaper]

jesus christ, it looks like someone dusted-off some 1990s' Maillardville townhouse plans.

Thanks for all the infill updates!

[osirisboy]

I really like maisonette. Does everything have to be modern? I think it would be been bettter a block off of Granville.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Glad we're building some condos in that neck of the woods! I'll avoid the angry folks.

There's a way to avoid them!? You mean, as a member of the public, we're not forced to come to these events and get screamed at?

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Feathered Friend, you may know my friend's townhomes on West 12th? He told me people didn't want renters in their single-family neighbourhood... even though most of the residents rented out suites in their buildings or rented out the whole multi-suite large homes... he told me this weekend that the City wants more last minute changes which could further reduce the number of units. From 15 to 10, which means no more rent caps, or no more project. That's the reality.

I attended that open house and posted about it here on skyscraper. Looking back, it just makes me wish City Duo had started sooner. I truly hope the City doesn't nix that project, but at least all the neighbours will still be able to park there, and not have to worry about the trees dripping sap on their own blocks

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Interestingly enough, the open house for that project was tonight, and I made sure to rush over to it after the 339 E First project (I may have a problem...)

Perhaps the night is best summed up with this conversation; I was speaking with a man (with two children at the event) who was against the project as it didn't provide enough parking/was too big. When I asked him how he expected his children to afford living in Vancouver when they grow up, his shocking response was that he simply didn't care. It was his children's problem to figure out and, as a car enthusiast, he was far more concerned that he would have a space to park his car and that most importantly, it wouldn't have tree sap dripping onto it. I honestly can't believe the priorities of these people...

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/feedback.htm

Found the old post for that one on the Kit's Diversion

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The fact that under a Development Permit you avoid most of the public's cries and complaints, but would still be building a 4-storey building and rental and it could easily be passed is hilarious that a 5-storey rental building gets this much flack. But 3 people getting angry isn't the community's whole reaction, nor does it mean this project can't/ won't go ahead as is.

I think the people at the event see that the existing building is so small and automatically assume this is the only thing permitted. They would still rally against 4 stories, it just wouldn't be as effective. Part of the problem with the blog is we are unable to communicate exactly how toxic a room was. It may have been these three voice that spoke the loudest, but there was a deep resentment shown by the majority of those who attended. Granted, it is those who are most upset that usually turn out to events like these.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I was there, must have just missed you and the ensuing s#*t show. Would have liked to be there to give the nay sayers a piece of my mind. I suppose they want us to stop breathing their air until they are done with it too...

Anyway I submitted my comment card supporting the project but lamenting the small FSR and lack of rooftop amenity.

Given the neighbourhood gearing up to oppose this one I suggest everyone here fill out the super-easy-to-complete comment card. Beat the NIMBYs at their own game:

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1906w4th/feedback.htm

Seems like we always just miss bumping into each other at these events. It would have been great to have your voice there, assuming they would have allowed us the right to speak in their neighbourhood . Constructive criticism is great, but I dislike when people march in with a mindset that everything is terrible about everything (and vice versa of course). Great advice on the comment cards, as it's really the only way to give the city the information/courage to push through.

[Feathered Friend]

Is there a Way to Save the Rio Theatre? Maybe Hollywood Has the Answer
A beloved community theatre faces threat of demolition and redevelopment, sound familiar? With the present danger to one of Vancouver’s landmarks, the Rio Theatre, it’s easy to forget that the Hollywood Theatre, a Kitsilano institution has sat empty for the last 5 years. Listed as part of Heritage Vancouver 2012 Top10 Watch List, this new proposal saves the heritage theatre, uses the resulting bonus density to allow for a 6 story building, and strengthens both West Broadway and Kitsilano. The new building will have a modern design, using its balconies to provide a respectful connection to the restored theatre, which will retain its art deco look. Care has been shown, as murals are to cover the blank walls, creating not just a physical arts hub, but a visual one as well.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/03/30...-theatre-maybe-hollywood-has-the-answer/

[GenWhy?]

708-796 Renfrew Street Rezoning 6-stories, 77 secured market rental suites.

Since I do thise for work, I rarely attend project open houses and engage with the team and public, but this one being so close to home and under the program it went under and at 5-stories... I knew the battle might be uphill.

Applying in under the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy, I knew the proponent had some, but not a lot to back up their proposal, but it still has teeth.

I got there a little latter and the place was packed, filled with a lot of the surrounding home owners upset about views, shadows, parking, traffic, crime, lack of families, commercial, high rents, affordability, greedy developers, a lack of townhomes, height.... I think that was most of what was mentioned. There were, of course, the odd ducks I ran into that were 30-something that were like, "well this is a no-brainer", including a man with a baby stapped to his chest and a downtown cyclist commuter with his wife.

Around 6:30pm the developer, a small time family development guy based mostly outside of Van got surrounded by the homeowners and cried the lyrics to closed ears: I am following city policy, I am not making a lot of money off the city mandated and capped rents, I can't make a 3-storey work, these are market rents, the land was expensive, I want to increase supply, I want to build rental housing...

Somewhere in here "crime" came up about having more 1-bed units in the building and less-so family units (I admit it was on at 23% family units, but the archtiect mentioned they were able to do this due to going Passive House, and I gave them a thumbs up), so then I piped in from my chair and said, "I'm a renter... am I a criminal? Who here rents?" Well, no one did. Most were speaking on behalf of their basement-suite dwellers too, which was odd. One older woman wanted the community to rally against developers as they promoted to :save our schools", which I commented that in order to save the schools low enrolment that more housing needed to be built.

While I respect and understand a lot of the adjacent homeowner's concerns, being naive and closed off to the graeter issues surrounding housing afordability, lack of rental supply, land and development costs, parkade costs and decreasing car use, it is necessary for the City to buck up and be stronger in support of smarter density in SF home areas on major bus routes.

Please for the love of god send in a comment and support this project:
http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/708renfrew/index.htm

[osirisboy]

I sent in a comment supporting it

Although I support it I would still like to see higher fsr

[whatnext]

East 16th between Main and Fraser is changing rapidly. For every high profile projects like the Independent there are scores of units being added in the neighbourhood. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of engineering is required for the Tea Swamp soils, I don't recall seeing any pre-load.

Hayden:
[IMG]Hayden by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_5159 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

Land assembly, south side:
[IMG]IMG_5160 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

my photos

[GenWhy?]

Love the first photo. Great little design and we would love to do this at lower cost all over town. Thanks for the photos.

A general thanks to all that share photos on here and are passionate about their city. Just came back from a reduced-rent (non-subsidized) TOD workshop with passionate folks and it really gives you a positive foot going forward in this city and in the industry for affordable housing options.

[Feathered Friend]

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1906w4th/documents/ShadowStudies.pdf

Is Preventing Shadows on 4th Avenue More Important Than Rental Homes? The UDP Decides

1906-1918 West 4th Avenue

Hannah recently wrote about this proposal for 4th and Cypress, highlighting the terrible comments that came from some in the community at the open house event. After that baptism of fire, the applicant team must have been prepared for the worst at the UDP. However, what I didn't expect was that another member of the public would join me for the meeting. Still I was happy to spend an hour of the meeting discussing the project, our city, and a variety of other subjects with Stuart from Abundant Housing Vancouver. Not to worry though, both of us were interested in the project, and made sure to grab the panels' comments.

[officedweller]

There should be a movement to change the terminology from "shadows" to "shade".

People LOVE shade trees.
(i.e. I doubt people would like a street lined with shadow trees.)

Maybe a change is in order away from "shadows".

[city-dweller]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

708-796 Renfrew Street Rezoning 6-stories, 77 secured market rental suites.

Applying in under the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy, I knew the proponent had some, but not a lot to back up their proposal, but it still has teeth.

...including a man with a baby stapped to his chest ...

As the one with the baby, I couldn't agree more. This is a very well thought out application. I would add my 2 cents since I live two blocks away.

The pattern for this neighbourhood is established owners either bought over 20 years ago or inherited their houses. Of those who inherited many of these 'adult' children don't live in or rent all or part of their houses out and put the bare minimum into them. When things get bad enough that the city bylaw guys get involved they sell the house. For renters who often are on sub-leases or cash agreements they are in over priced under maintained housing that is very precarious. Sure you could complain to the rental tenancy board but there is no where to go and the land lords aren't rentevicting they will just sell and cash out.

The new home owners in the area need renters to afford their mortgages (We kept our renters when we bought) and many are adding laneway houses or renovating to add a suite.

When you talk to these owners they have no problem with more low rise rental. We want more commercial and and a stable population. Not the SF slum lords.

Also, The CRUs will probably go franchise given there is a school there but who knows what the rents will be for compared to Hastings.

P.S. once you have a newborn posting on these forums is like once in a blue moon