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

[Migrant_Coconut]

So GenWhy's a NIMBY now? Oookay then...

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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

Guess there's no winning.

Just stating what my team is building already according to City policy and by-laws and what would likely happen here. Changing City policy and by-laws on parking and loading would have to come first, IMO.

Would likely require a car elevator too (they're super cool FYI)

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So GenWhy's a NIMBY now? Oookay then...

To be fair the biggest NIMBYs I know are wealthy developers. I ain't wealthy so I'm pro wrecking ball.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Changing City policy and by-laws on parking and loading would have to come first, IMO.

This whole thread is about changing city policy and by-laws, so of course that's on the table.

Would likely require a car elevator too (they're super cool FYI)

Are there any car elevators in the city besides 1038 Homer? It was in use by Mini Yaletown when they were in Yaletown (yes there was a whole car dealership there at one point, very boutique ), and I guess now it's in use by Rivian which is pretty cool.

[fredinno]

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 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?

Olympic Village was the way it was because of shadowing...I think.
Not sure 100% why they didn't just copy Yaletown to the other side of False Creek, though I heard the shadowing in the afternoon as an explanation.


I think the older Concord Yaletown lots should be up for rezoning once Concord finally finishes NEFC and the other lots they 'bought' back.

Despite the fact that it's all towers, the actual density is lower than it would be- NEFC 'steps down' into lower density at Olympic Village (also the viewcones are worse here), and still has a higher FSR of 4.33 (minus Creekside Park) vs the FSR of 3.7 for the pre-2010s era Concord Yaletown towers.

There's a lot of obvious ones like 633 Kinghorne Mews and 136 Davie that could be demolished and rebuilt, (as well as the townhouses that fill the streetscape, which could be turned into 6-7 story office/apartment buildings with retail) while renovating the taller towers.

They could probably double the FSR in the end if they can convince the existing residents to put up with the constant construction so they can sell more units.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

This whole thread is about changing city policy and by-laws, so of course that's on the table.

Right, but I'm just trying to be realistic. It's surprisingly "easy" (to those on the inside) to get a few extra floor and FSR here and there at the stroke of a pen from Staff and Council, but it's a whole other world to greatly relax garbage, loading, parking related by-laws.

You could impose a zero parking maximum, or a active-frontage requirement (x feet) which would allow you to preserve the heritage loading bays used by patios on Hamilton, and allow you to put the 1 car elevator access (13 feet wide) on Homer.

You could implement a centralized garbage system for the area. That would reduce that access requirement. Could also eliminate requirements for a loading bay and have that on the street.

This kinda applies to Gastown and Chinatown too I guess

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Are there any car elevators in the city besides 1038 Homer? It was in use by Mini Yaletown when they were in Yaletown (yes there was a whole car dealership there at one point, very boutique ), and I guess now it's in use by Rivian which is pretty cool.

There is one, if I remember as it was our only precedent example at the time, at South Creek Landing. Could be mixed up about location.

We tried to apply for an elevator in the City but there was a weird loophole where the company was licensed or whatever in Canada but not in BC, so we had to go through that for like a year. Ended up not getting built. We're currently proposing another office building downtown with an elevator. Seems to be going much better.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

There is one, if I remember as it was our only precedent example at the time, at South Creek Landing. Could be mixed up about location.

Very cool, yes there's one there. I would have never known if it wasn't pointed out. The Yaletown one is just far more obvious since it's behind glass doors.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

There is one, if I remember as it was our only precedent example at the time, at South Creek Landing. Could be mixed up about location.

We tried to apply for an elevator in the City but there was a weird loophole where the company was licensed or whatever in Canada but not in BC, so we had to go through that for like a year. Ended up not getting built. We're currently proposing another office building downtown with an elevator. Seems to be going much better.

Doesn't Jameson House have one?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Doesn't Jameson House have one?

Unless it's inside the parkade, Google seems to prove it doesn't.

Laneway access

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Olympic Village was the way it was because of shadowing...I think.
Not sure 100% why they didn't just copy Yaletown to the other side of False Creek, though I heard the shadowing in the afternoon as an explanation.

I think the older Concord Yaletown lots should be up for rezoning once Concord finally finishes NEFC and the other lots they 'bought' back.

Despite the fact that it's all towers, the actual density is lower than it would be- NEFC 'steps down' into lower density at Olympic Village (also the viewcones are worse here), and still has a higher FSR of 4.33 (minus Creekside Park) vs the FSR of 3.7 for the pre-2010s era Concord Yaletown towers.

There's a lot of obvious ones like 633 Kinghorne Mews and 136 Davie that could be demolished and rebuilt, (as well as the townhouses that fill the streetscape, which could be turned into 6-7 story office/apartment buildings with retail) while renovating the taller towers.

They could probably double the FSR in the end if they can convince the existing residents to put up with the constant construction so they can sell more units.

There are 33 parcels developed by Concord Pacific before 2010. They have 5,859 condos, so Concord couldn't redevelop any of them without buying back 80% of the owners. (It would be different if they had retained rental units, but they're almost all strata with a few non-market units). The FSR of those parcels is 4.4 FSR. The urban design deliberately reduces the height of buildings as they get closer to thw waterfront to allow views for the towers behind, and to avoid a wall of buioldings next to the water. (They're on the north of False Creek, so it's nothing to do with shadowing on that side).

South East False Creek, (and initially The Olympic Village), took a different design approach to False Creek North with the intention of trying something more 'European' with much more attention to sustainability in the design, narrower, and activated 'lanes', with green roofs on the mid-rise buildings. The intent was to deliver a similar density to False Creek North, and similarly to generally have shorter buildings towards the water. The residential buildings so far developed in South East False Creek average 4.3 FSR.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unless it's inside the parkade, Google seems to prove it doesn't.

Laneway access

It's an automated parking system.

Sparrow has a car elevator too, and I think there are more around. Not an easy solution for Yaletown though, because you end up waiting to get into the elevator on the street, as there are no lanes, just other streets (with loading bays).

To redevelop 1140 Homer you actually have to demolish the interior of the building as it's a heavy timber frame with brick walls. You'd lose the character of the building, and spend an huge amount of money to prop up the brick walls, remove the frame, dig a hole below the basement floor, build a building in the hole, put the frame back, then put the tower on top. It would be a bit cheaper to gut the interior, but still not cheap. In current markets it's doubtful whether it would be viable for office space. You'd have to have minimal or no parking too. The similar 21 storey on a heritage base office idea at 526 Granville Street was approved with 2 parking spaces, and proposed to retain just two walls of the heritage building. It's also on a lane, not mid-block, so can have glazing on the side, while that wouldn't be possible mid-block like 1140, which would end up pretty dark in the middle. And a 25 storey tower on top of the existing building would totally alter the character of the Yaletown warehouse district, which seems to be a point you don't care about.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are 33 parcels developed by Concord Pacific before 2010. They have 5,859 condos, so Concord couldn't redevelop any of them without buying back 80% of the owners. (It would be different if they had retained rental units, but they're almost all strata with a few non-market units). The FSR of those parcels is 4.4 FSR. The urban design deliberately reduces the height of buildings as they get closer to thw waterfront to allow views for the towers behind, and to avoid a wall of buioldings next to the water. (They're on the north of False Creek, so it's nothing to do with shadowing on that side).

South East False Creek, (and initially The Olympic Village), took a different design approach to False Creek North with the intention of trying something more 'European' with much more attention to sustainability in the design, narrower, and activated 'lanes', with green roofs on the mid-rise buildings. The intent was to deliver a similar density to False Creek North, and similarly to generally have shorter buildings towards the water. The residential buildings so far developed in South East False Creek average 4.3 FSR.

South East False Creek, (and initially The Olympic Village), took a different design approach to False Creek North with the intention of trying something more 'European' with much more attention to sustainability in the design, narrower, and activated 'lanes', with green roofs on the mid-rise buildings. The intent was to deliver a similar density to False Creek North, and similarly to generally have shorter buildings towards the water. The residential buildings so far developed in South East False Creek average 4.3 FSR.

Do you have a direct source for this? I'm not saying it's untrue, it's that I've heard this and I've never seen it confirmed. Same with OV design FSR.

They never preserved the views from the towers in the back for the later towers, so I guess they gave up on that idea as time went on.
It's definitely looks like the case for the first few batches, though.

But most of the new density would be in the podiums/yards and some of the lower towers and lower apartment buildings, so I don't think it'd be 80%- probably more like 30-40%, depending on how ambitious you want to be.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Do you have a direct source for this? I'm not saying it's untrue, it's that I've heard this and I've never seen it confirmed. Same with OV design FSR.

They never preserved the views from the towers in the back for the later towers, so I guess they gave up on that idea as time went on.
It's definitely looks like the case for the first few batches, though.

But most of the new density would be in the podiums/yards and some of the lower towers and lower apartment buildings, so I don't think it'd be 80%- probably more like 30-40%, depending on how ambitious you want to be.

I have a database of buildings. When there's a new proposal I add it, with the floorspace, and the site area. It's always in the report to Council, or the DP Board. There is a book by John Punter called the Vancouver Achievement that talked about the approach to designing SEFC, and I think it was also in Larry Beasley's book. (He was Director of Planning).

Hired as a consultant, Stanley Kwok (of Concord) designed an initial project in 1997 with six towers to the south of two storey townhouses and 4 storey apartments along the waterfront and around wedge shaped parks - a rework of FCN. There were apartment blocks on the eastern, Main St side, much as there are today, (although his were less dense). When Council pushed sustainability as a much more important aspect of the redevelopment, Mark Holland, and Sheltair produced detailed research reports. (In the Meantime Mount Pleasant residents raised a 700 signature petition that the whole area should just be a park!). The City held a 3-day design charette in 1998 that generated the 1999 policy statement that set the design approach for the area.

Initially this reduced the anticipated FSR to only 3.0, which was pretty much what the OV was built at. More recent rezonings in the private lands to the south and east were allowed to add density for community benefits (the BMO theatre in the Wall project), and add two extra set back floors for a CAC, once it became apparent that the bankruptcy of Millennium would leave the City short of cash to pay for the parks and other public works.

On FCN I think that all the taller towers are to the north, and the shorter ones nearer the Creek, except for Cooper's Park where they wanted a slab wall next to the Plaza of Nations (and got it). False Creek North's pre-2010 building parcels average 4.4 FSR, but if you add in the parks and community centre the density of the area is 2.8. I just checked SEFC, and updated it to add Avenue One. That takes the overall developed density so far to an average of 4.2 FSR and with parks and community centre the density is 2.9 FSR. So they're a fascinating example of built form not telling you very much about density. (And the three heritage warehouse streets in Yaletown are 3.9 FSR).

As I understand it, there's generally one strata covering both the low-rise and high-rise parts of the project. 80% of the strata would have to agree, and somehow the strata would have to be split into two. Generally there's only one parkade which would make redevelopment (and adding more parking) very difficult.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I have a database of buildings. When there's a new proposal I add it, with the floorspace, and the site area. It's always in the report to Council, or the DP Board. There is a book by John Punter called the Vancouver Achievement that talked about the approach to designing SEFC, and I think it was also in Larry Beasley's book. (He was Director of Planning).

Hired as a consultant, Stanley Kwok (of Concord) designed an initial project in 1997 with six towers to the south of two storey townhouses and 4 storey apartments along the waterfront and around wedge shaped parks - a rework of FCN. There were apartment blocks on the eastern, Main St side, much as there are today, (although his were less dense). When Council pushed sustainability as a much more important aspect of the redevelopment, Mark Holland, and Sheltair produced detailed research reports. (In the Meantime Mount Pleasant residents raised a 700 signature petition that the whole area should just be a park!). The City held a 3-day design charette in 1998 that generated the 1999 policy statement that set the design approach for the area.

Initially this reduced the anticipated FSR to only 3.0, which was pretty much what the OV was built at. More recent rezonings in the private lands to the south and east were allowed to add density for community benefits (the BMO theatre in the Wall project), and add two extra set back floors for a CAC, once it became apparent that the bankruptcy of Millennium would leave the City short of cash to pay for the parks and other public works.

On FCN I think that all the taller towers are to the north, and the shorter ones nearer the Creek, except for Cooper's Park where they wanted a slab wall next to the Plaza of Nations (and got it). False Creek North's pre-2010 building parcels average 4.4 FSR, but if you add in the parks and community centre the density of the area is 2.8. I just checked SEFC, and updated it to add Avenue One. That takes the overall developed density so far to an average of 4.2 FSR and with parks and community centre the density is 2.9 FSR. So they're a fascinating example of built form not telling you very much about density. (And the three heritage warehouse streets in Yaletown are 3.9 FSR).

As I understand it, there's generally one strata covering both the low-rise and high-rise parts of the project. 80% of the strata would have to agree, and somehow the strata would have to be split into two. Generally there's only one parkade which would make redevelopment (and adding more parking) very difficult.

https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/odp/odp-...alse-creek.pdf
It's just that the SEFC plan states a FSR of 3.5 for the denser segments away from the waterfront.

There are density bonuses, and those seem to have been added- but it seems they went even beyond that here. now that I'm looking closer at the actual buildings.

False Creek North states a total FSR of ~3.8 for the westernmost (oldest) section (Area 1) on False Creek North. It's still lower than the tower size would imply.
In comparison, the Arc has a FSR of ~6.8.

I don't think the parkade is so much of an issue- especially since you're already demolishing half of the lot (also, it's Downtown). But you have a point- though I still think the podiums of old towers (that aren't just demolished) will still be redeveloped, as that's still a lot of density you can gain while keeping most of the existing structure.


And also, I don't like people making assumptions about their intentions. I do like historic buildings- I just don't like how it's done in Yaletown right now because it's too artificial IMO.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Translation: a more gradual change (e.g. 4 floors to 10-20, then 30-40, over several decades) may have resulted in a reduced historic district, or none at all. Rapid progress led to equally-rapid kneejerk preservationism - something the entire metro may want to consider, going forward.

Some, not many. Note again that the Sperling Elementary area is a bit more SkyTrain-adjacent than Station Creek, but none of that’s up for rezoning.



Let's be real, all of NYC is unaffordable; East Village is actually cheaper than Brooklyn.

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 base).

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 dunno how smart it would be to redevelop parcels so soon rather than building in 1 fell swoop. Seems kind of wasteful, and you lock into lower density earlier on.
Buildings are usually assumed to last 50 years (if managed well) before needing demolishment or major renovations.


Also note that Sperling Elementary is a 12 min walk from the station because it's on top of a slope.
Humans are not birds.

Also, the industrial lots were de-zoned from industrial long before Metro Vancouver started preserving industry, so I guess Burnaby just decided they may as well build condos there rather than keeping them industrial.

They're still rezoning half of the low-density housing around Sperling.
That's not really "Grand Bargain"- there could be improvements, but it's still not horrible, and the SFHs preserved are the ones more difficult to get to anyways.


Well, TBF, if you add Greenwich Village, they're in the same rough area. Also, there's a ton of social housing in East Village.
It's more the prices kind of even out regardless of how dense the area is overall, and densifying the East Village and Greenwich would decrease the base minimum and maximum price across the entire area (in theory.)


OK, fair enough.
I'm not sure how well the industrial-office lots in Mt. Pleasant and the Flats could end up replacing them though- though that was part of the intention of their plans.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Or maybe that “lower” density would’ve spread around the West End and over False Creek... we don’t really know. What we do know is that a decade of playing with an Infinity Gauntlet basically led to almost two decades of playing with dentist drills.

People on 4th and 6th and Clark can’t fly either - that slope’s not exactly gentle. Does that mean rezoning uphill/downhill from the Broadway stations was a mistake? Of course not.
And the SFHs that're hard to reach could easily be zoned for basement suites and laneways like the CoV's doing, but laneways are scary for them, even in 2021.

... Johnston, meanwhile, said he’s supportive of changing the types of housing stock in the city but fears some are resistant to that change and instead prefer having single-family neighbourhoods unaltered.

He also hinted that too much change in any direction could be political suicide come next year’s election and cause massive turnover around the council table.

“I don’t think we want to go that way. I don’t think that it’s good for the community, and I do think we need to make sure that the public is aware of the process and how it impacts their neighbourhoods,” Johnston said.

Both councillors were assured by planning staff that any substantive change – whether it be around laneway homes, duplexes or any other large policy shift – would come back before council and be subject to further public consultation...

I guess that’s an argument for more state housing, then?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/odp/odp-...alse-creek.pdf
It's just that the SEFC plan states a FSR of 3.5 for the denser segments away from the waterfront.

There are density bonuses, and those seem to have been added- but it seems they went even beyond that here. now that I'm looking closer at the actual buildings.

False Creek North states a total FSR of ~3.8 for the westernmost (oldest) section (Area 1) on False Creek North. It's still lower than the tower size would imply.
In comparison, the Arc has a FSR of ~6.8.

The Arc is 6.88 FSR with 29 storeys. Pinnacle on the Park in SEFC is 6.98 FSR and 18 storeys.

In the DTES densities are higher. 58 West Hastings is 10 storeys and 6.5 FSR, Holborn's market rental at 95 West Hastings (as yet unbuilt) is 7.6 FSR in 10 storeys 401 Jackson is 11 storeys and 7.0 FSR and 41 East Hastings is 14 storeys and 11.1 FSR.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or maybe that “lower” density would’ve spread around the West End and over False Creek... we don’t really know. What we do know is that a decade of playing with an Infinity Gauntlet basically led to almost two decades of playing with dentist drills.

People on 4th and 6th and Clark can’t fly either - that slope’s not exactly gentle. Does that mean rezoning uphill/downhill from the Broadway stations was a mistake? Of course not.
And the SFHs that're hard to reach could easily be zoned for basement suites and laneways like the CoV's doing, but laneways are scary for them, even in 2021.

I guess that’s an argument for more state housing, then?

Well, other than 4th and 6th being supposed to be part of downtown, not a suburban ALRT station? It's not even an FTDA.

My point is that Burnaby's not as bad as a lot of people think it is. They make bad decisions, but there are dumber municipalities in the Metro region, like Surrey.

And plus, I'm not sure it matters so much after the province banned single-family zoning.


Do the industrial-office lots in Mt. Pleasant and the Flats end up replacing/supplementing a lot of the uses of Yaletown historical in practice?

Originally Posted by Changing City

The Arc is 6.88 FSR with 29 storeys. Pinnacle on the Park in SEFC is 6.98 FSR and 18 storeys. In the DTES, 58 West Hastings is 10 storeys and 6.5 FSR, Holborn's market rental at 95 West Hastings (as yet unbuilt) is 7.6 FSR in 10 storeys and 41 East Hastings is 14 storeys and 11.1 FSR.

Thanks for the information.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Do the industrial-office lots in Mt. Pleasant and the Flats end up replacing/supplementing a lot of the uses of Yaletown historical in practice?

Thanks for the information.

You're welcome.

A lot of the businesses moving into Mount Pleasant are tech, movie processing, animation and FX companies. Once upon a time they'd have looked to Yaletown, but there aren't many larger spaces there, and the area doesn't have many vacancies (and is relatively small anyway). With Emily Carr in the Flats, other digital companies have also gone there including EA and Langara's digital arts school. You'll find electronic gaming businesses in all three areas.

Mount Pleasant is also getting biotech growth from AbCellera, who now have space in 5 buildings. Low Tide are pitching for similar businesses to take space on the Flats, although the two buildings developed as biotech are neither occupied by their developers, QLT and Angiotech, who developed them in an earlier round of biotech growth. One is now HQ to Stem Cell Technologies, who moved from Mount Pleasant.

For now the Flats also has a lot of car-related showrooms and service buildings along Terminal and Evans. The office space more recently has been more along Great Northern Way, closer to the new SkyTrain station, and VCC, which is also planning a massive expansion.