New land use policy for Rupert/Renfrew Stations

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I believe we've all had this conversation before in the Mount Pleasant thread. Yeah, you probably won't see anything above six floors.



Fixed. Lougheed, sure, but it's slight, piecemeal development; Oakridge, see below.

Correct. Point is, Burnaby and all the others have only been building tall so that they keep inside the C and I zoning or demovict "mere" renters, and won't have to touch the SFHs (Grand Bargain and all that). The height's got nothing to do with urbanism or affordability or any crap like that, and everything to do with them not having the balls to challenge suburbistan like Vancouver's doing.

Well, what do you mean by 'all the others'? Surrey Central, Richmond, Guildford, and Langley City have no problem with demoing old SFHs (mostly). Granted, mostly still smaller-scale, but that's since they simply haven't been developed enough for the smaller lots to be that appealing to most developers.
It's the inner suburbs that have issues with SFH NIMBYs (ironically, they have the most that should be torn-down.

Even then, the fact there's relatively few issues with tearing down SFHs in the outer suburbs gives me some hope the inner suburbs will eventually catch up.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, what do you mean by 'all the others'? Surrey Central, Richmond, Guildford, and Langley City have no problem with demoing old SFHs (mostly). Granted, mostly still smaller-scale, but that's since they simply haven't been developed enough for the smaller lots to be that appealing to most developers.
It's the inner suburbs that have issues with SFH NIMBYs (ironically, they have the most that should be torn-down.

Even then, the fact there's relatively few issues with tearing down SFHs in the outer suburbs gives me some hope the inner suburbs will eventually catch up.

That's what I'm saying. Some people note the lack of similar development along the Expo, some others insist that's because of some inherent backwardness in the CoV... and what's actually going on is that the inner city has a lot more NIMBY entrenchment, which is either solved by direct confrontation (density overall) or strategic retreat (all the density on one block).

Could go either way, though it's worth noting that up to now, most of the Burnaby/New West/TriCity suburbs haven't been up for rezoning. I'm not very optimistic about what'll happen when they are.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's what I'm saying. Some people note the lack of similar development along the Expo, some others insist that's because of some inherent backwardness in the CoV... and what's actually going on is that the inner city has a lot more NIMBY entrenchment, which is either solved by direct confrontation (density overall) or strategic retreat (all the density on one block).

Could go either way, though it's worth noting that up to now, most of the Burnaby/New West/TriCity suburbs haven't been up for rezoning. I'm not very optimistic about what'll happen when they are.

The lack of development at Nanaimo and 29th Ave stations is because the City of Vancouver was pissed off at the Province for ramming through an elevated line down the back alley parallel to Commercial Drive.
The City wanted it buried.
The City passed zoning plans that only allowed increased density on certain parcels in the vicinity of each station.

Here's my post from Oct 11, 2010 (CoV Links still work):

There used to be (i.e. following the opening of the Expo Line and in through the 1990s) a policy of the City not to rezone simply because of proximity to SkyTrain stations - I had seen it referenced in Council Minutes from the 1990s. That has only recently changed due to the Canada Line with precinct-wide rezonings. That's also the reason there are so many empty lots near Nanaimo Station - remember how old the Expo Line is - property prices were not sky-high when that line was built - so what else was preventing redevelopment? The City.

The City hasn't entertained the idea of up-zoning areas such as Broadway & Commercial until recently - and even then, that's on the Safeway site, not existing single family parcels. The Transit Village concept for the Broadway & Commercial precinct does not contemplate up-zoning single family housing on a precinct wide basis (which would allow developers to onsolidate lands without it being a case by case crap shoot as to whether rezoning would be allowed).

Found this article on transit-oriented development on a Google search:

http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/.../canadian.html[DEAD link]

Note the references for that article:.

Here are two of them:

Broadway Station Area Plan Summary 1987
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/B020.pdf

Nanaimo/29th Avenue Station Areas Plan Summary 1987
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/N003.pdf

***************

Broadway Station Area Plan

The preamble includes a tidbit about how CoV wanted to cut and cover (!!) under Commercial Drive ($14 million) but the Province didn't want to - talks broke down and the line ended up in the alley where it is today (and was never approved by the City of Vancouver along that segment).

***************

Nanaimo/29th Avenue Station Areas Plan

Under the heading "New Development Opportunities" this plan identifies the only sites tht would be allowed to up-zone to multi-family:

Maybe someone would like to compare the recommended sites with those that have actually been developed.
I think only sites 'G' (partially developed) and site 'P' have been developed. A satellite view on Google Maps shows many of the sites as vacant land and many still having single family homes.

************

I also found the following CD-1 Rezoning bylaws, which requires multi-family housing to be compatible with existing single family houses:

29TH AVENUE STATION AREA - CD-1 GUIDELINES
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/.../CD-1/T003.pdf

NANAIMO STATION AREA - CD-1 GUIDELINES
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/.../CD-1/N001.pdf

This is the large apartment complex next to Nanaimo Station:
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/.../CD-1/N002.pdf

***********

Even the 2001 rezoning for the Broadway & Commercial area when the Millennium Line was built does not impose the precinct wide increases in density that are currently being proposed for the Canada Line precincts.
In 2001, the amended zoning bylaws provided for conditional zoning with height limits to be raised to a maximum of 18.4 metres but only immediately adjacent to the station.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/...010802/pe7.htm

[officedweller]

Introduction from the 1987 Broadway Station Area Plan:

[scottN]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Metrolinx's Davenport diamond grade separation project could be a precedent.
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread....9001/page-111

They built a temporary parallel track in order to build the viaduct.

Is that viaduct for GO passenger trains or heavy rail?

The BNSF tracks are uphill going west in this section

24m where they go under highway 1
28m at Rupert
32m at Renfrew, Kaslo and Slocan where the cut starts.
Then grades are downhill through the cut to the false creek flats at 6m.

Conclusion: raising the railway on a viaduct at the top of a hill makes the grades worse in both directions. Lowering the railway in a trench would be better for grades. Perhaps we might see a combination of raising the rail bed and underpasses at Renfrew and Rupert.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by scottN

Is that viaduct for GO passenger trains or heavy rail?

The BNSF tracks are uphill going west in this section

24m where they go under highway 1
28m at Rupert
32m at Renfrew, Kaslo and Slocan where the cut starts.
Then grades are downhill through the cut to the false creek flats at 6m.

Conclusion: raising the railway on a viaduct at the top of a hill makes the grades worse in both directions. Lowering the railway in a trench would be better for grades. Perhaps we might see a combination of raising the rail bed and underpasses at Renfrew and Rupert.

The viaduct is for GO trains, so you are correct in that the trains could take steeper grades.

[GenWhy?]

That Sation Plan, isn't that what we call the Norquay Plan now? I'm not that old so I've definitely never see that old station plan before.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by scottN

The Grandview-Woodland Community plan covers Commercial-Broadway Station, but not Nanaimo Station.

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...nity-plan.aspx

They called it a "plan" but it looks more like a "status quo" manual.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I believe we've all had this conversation before in the Mount Pleasant thread. Yeah, you probably won't see anything above six floors.

Fixed. Lougheed, sure, but it's slight, piecemeal development; Oakridge, see below.

Correct. Point is, Burnaby and all the others have only been building tall so that they keep inside the C and I zoning or demovict "mere" renters, and won't have to touch the SFHs (Grand Bargain and all that). The height's got nothing to do with urbanism or affordability or any crap like that, and everything to do with them not having the balls to challenge suburbistan like Vancouver's doing.

Lougheed is piecemeal? Lol. You should see what's taking shape there compared to much, much older Vancouver neighbourhoods like Oakridge, Kerrisdale, Commercial-Broadway or Kitsilano, which remain low-density and highly unaffordable. You can blabber all you want about Vancouver but it is the suburb municipalities that are creating densities beautifully, and fast.

Burnaby has the guts to approve the talls to the SFH lots, meaning given time, these SFH dwellers will also have to let go of their properties if offered the right price. Vancouver is the one that lacks guts to deal with SFHs, except those along a select few arterial roads.

Height's got everything to do with urbanism and affordability, no matter how much you want to deny it.

[twoNeurons]

Interesting stuff. The Italian Cultural Centre was going to go ahead and get Bosa to redevelop their lands between Slocan and Nanaimo. It was going to be a mixed-use commercial/condo development, but the Italian community shot it down.

It has a giant parking area ripe for redevelopment.

Kind of annoying that they exclude the one residential SFH block between Renfrew and Kaslo south of Broadway. If they decided to include that, prices for that land would skyrocket... but now, it will be slowly bought up by developers while it's zoned as SFH and at a future time (sooner rather than later, I would think) they'll petition to upzone it. It's the perfect place for some mid-rises on the hill facing south.

There's also a government building on Grandview/Kaslo that has a sign up building a low-rise mixed use building.

In any case, this is a welcome change and I don't think it's too late, I think you had to wait until market forces started to really look at the area and you needed to have the broadway tech centre built out first before you looked at planning the rest of the area.

This area is more desirable than the Gilmore area IMHO, being within walking distance of Commercial Drive.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Vin

They called it a "plan" but it looks more like a "status quo" manual.



Lougheed is piecemeal? Lol. You should see what's taking shape there compared to much, much older Vancouver neighbourhoods like Oakridge, Kerrisdale, Commercial-Broadway or Kitsilano, which remain low-density and highly unaffordable. You can blabber all you want about Vancouver but it is the suburb municipalities that are creating densities beautifully, and fast.

Burnaby has the guts to approve the talls to the SFH lots, meaning given time, these SFH dwellers will also have to let go of their properties if offered the right price. Vancouver is the one that lacks guts to deal with SFHs, except those along a select few arterial roads.

Height's got everything to do with urbanism and affordability, no matter how much you want to deny it.

I agree that Burnaby's got more guts when it comes to density, but I disagree that you need skyscrapers for density. I think most places end up being more livable when you allow for medium density over a larger area instead of large towers.

I DESPISE the so-called SFHs in much of East Vancouver. They typically are NOT SFH at ALL... they're mini-fiefdoms, with any new build having a minimum of 2 suites (one illegal) and a laneway. The city has never enforced the rules and so it has led to SFHs being overvalued. What you end up with is mouldy basement suites instead of innovative solutions like row-housing or small-scale PROPER density. You end up with a city of SFHs, none of which actually have a single family. Some of these SFHs have 40' wide lots. New SFH builds in the valley have 25' lots, which don't allow mini-fiefdoms other than a single suite in the basement.

The Average lot size in Vancouver is 33', so why not add an incentive to buying up two adjacent 33' lots and allowing 3x22' lots. You could either choose to build a triplex or 3 skinny homes. AT the same time a moratorium on laneway homes... or at LEAST enforcement of ONE SUITE per home OR a laneway home... like they do in North Vancouver.

If you want more density, you subdivide. Plain and simple.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

There's also a government building on Grandview/Kaslo that has a sign up building a low-rise mixed use building.

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...whwy/index.htm

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...whwy/index.htm

I don't know all the details about it, but everything I've heard says that project is dead.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Lougheed is piecemeal? Lol. You should see what's taking shape there compared to much, much older Vancouver neighbourhoods like Oakridge, Kerrisdale, Commercial-Broadway or Kitsilano, which remain low-density and highly unaffordable. You can blabber all you want about Vancouver but it is the suburb municipalities that are creating densities beautifully, and fast.

Burnaby has the guts to approve the talls to the SFH lots, meaning given time, these SFH dwellers will also have to let go of their properties if offered the right price. Vancouver is the one that lacks guts to deal with SFHs, except those along a select few arterial roads.

Height's got everything to do with urbanism and affordability, no matter how much you want to deny it.

Feel free to compare how many low-density homes Lougheed is rezoning against any of those CoV neighbourhoods. It will lose. Once they run out of warehouses, that's all the density Burnaby will ever have unless they follow Vancouver.

Any new "talls" or even "shorts" proposed/U-C in Garden Village or Lochdale, like in Dunbar, Oak or Grandview-Woodland? Nope. They're rezoning a tiny chunk of Bainbridge Avenue for lowrises, and that's it.

Yes, Brentwood's extra 1-bedroom condos starting at half a million CAD are really going to help the metro's affordability. Nothing at all to do with NIMBYism everywhere else in the area or developers' pockets...

[WarrenC12]

Burnaby is still kicking people out of low rise affordable apartments to make way for new towers.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vin

You should see what's taking shape there compared to much, much older Vancouver neighbourhoods like Oakridge

Burnaby has the guts to approve the talls to the SFH lots, meaning given time, these SFH dwellers will also have to let go of their properties if offered the right price.

You mean the Oakridge that is currently adding 2,600 residential units and doubling its commercial space?

Can you also provide some specific examples of the Burnaby projects being built on SFH lots? Every project in Metrotown so far has consisted of tearing down low-rise apartment blocks. The SFH to the south of Imperial and to the north of Grange have not been touched. And from my recollection, the other projects around the city have also replaced low-rise residential or shopping malls.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Kind of annoying that they exclude the one residential SFH block between Renfrew and Kaslo south of Broadway. If they decided to include that, prices for that land would skyrocket... but now, it will be slowly bought up by developers while it's zoned as SFH and at a future time (sooner rather than later, I would think) they'll petition to upzone it. It's the perfect place for some mid-rises on the hill facing south.

The study area includes SF homes as they're within the station areas, but we have to wait until Q1 2022 to see what their direction is. The highlit areas on the diagrams I think people see are just previous special designated areas already within the study boundary.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

You mean the Oakridge that is currently adding 2,600 residential units and doubling its commercial space?

Can you also provide some specific examples of the Burnaby projects being built on SFH lots? Every project in Metrotown so far has consisted of tearing down low-rise apartment blocks. The SFH to the south of Imperial and to the north of Grange have not been touched. And from my recollection, the other projects around the city have also replaced low-rise residential or shopping malls.

I'm actually NOT a fan of replacing low-rises with high rises. Those low rises were actually more affordable than the SFH around them. Tearing down low-rises to put in high-rises while keeping SFHs at the periphery is gutless, if you ask me. This region only seems to know how to do one thing... glass boxes in the sky.

Look at a FAR more livable city like Tokyo and you even see affordable SFHs inside the city limits. Sure, there's on a small parcel of land, but it will be mixed in with 6-story apartments, some commercial, a rice paddy here and there and high-rises.

Vancouver's making a LITTLE progress with the duplex zoning, which will HOPEFULLY FINALLY start to address the craptastic laneway home mistakes that were made previously.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... laneway homes were approved for ONE reason... to make it harder to rezone SFHs. A laneway home increases the value of a property and forces anyone who wants to own a home to become a landlord with 3 tenants ( one in the legal suite, one in the illegal one, one in the laneway ).

Seriously, that's approaching mini apartment sizes. but with the constant feeling of living in someone else's home... which it's not. If you're renting a suite, it's YOUR home... in someone else's HOUSE... it's different.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I'm actually NOT a fan of replacing low-rises with high rises.

You're preaching to the choir. I think some low rises are in such bad condition due to neglect and poor construction that they should be replaced, but it's unfortunate that Burnaby is demolishing properties with medium-high density to make way for towers, instead of SFH. It would be one thing if all SFH zoning restrictions were relaxed, paving the way to replace those demolished low-rises with new ones...

[scryer]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I'm actually NOT a fan of replacing low-rises with high rises. Those low rises were actually more affordable than the SFH around them. Tearing down low-rises to put in high-rises while keeping SFHs at the periphery is gutless, if you ask me. This region only seems to know how to do one thing... glass boxes in the sky.

I do agree as well.

I can get on board with replacing low-rises with high rises IF the region would up zone SFH areas to accommodate the displaced low-rises at the same time.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I'm actually NOT a fan of replacing low-rises with high rises. Those low rises were actually more affordable than the SFH around them. Tearing down low-rises to put in high-rises while keeping SFHs at the periphery is gutless, if you ask me. This region only seems to know how to do one thing... glass boxes in the sky.

But in Vancouver, and these days Burnaby and Coquitlam, any rental has to be replaced either onsite (usually in the podium) or nearby, and with non-market units. So they're as affordable, or cheaper than market units, and they're controlled outside the market and should stay affordable. In those three municipalities where a great many tower projects are replacing older rental buildings, there should be no loss of affordable housing.

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Look at a FAR more livable city like Tokyo and you even see affordable SFHs inside the city limits. Sure, there's on a small parcel of land, but it will be mixed in with 6-story apartments, some commercial, a rice paddy here and there and high-rises.

Oh come on, Tokyo? Where one of their biggest housing problems is hundreds of thousands of abandoned homes? And a falling population. Not any sort of relevant comparison. "Unlike in other countries, Japanese homes gradually depreciate over time, becoming completely valueless within 20 or 30 years." [source]