1800-1898 Main Street (East 2nd & Main) | 106ft | 11fl

lokyin · #1 Posted **Jan 30, 2019, 6:17 PM**

This is a pretty major intersection traffic-wise...

What will really dictate the success is the ground-level retail that will end up going in here. It feels very standalone right now considering there's nothing major on the other corners atm.

osirisboy · #2 Posted **Jan 30, 2019, 6:23 PM**

Why so short?

WarrenC12 · #3 Posted **Jan 30, 2019, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokyin

This is a pretty major intersection traffic-wise...

What will really dictate the success is the ground-level retail that will end up going in here. It feels very standalone right now considering there's nothing major on the other corners atm.

Is there any ground level retail going in on the other side of Main, currently under construction? I can't recall. There are still vacant CRUs on Main north of 1st Ave. Plenty of foot traffic though, and the new MEC store should drive a ton more foot and bike traffic, among others.

osirisboy · #4 Posted **Jan 30, 2019, 6:32 PM**

This section of main and second has always had retail here. Why would you think now it wouldn't work?

Changing City · #5 Posted **Jan 30, 2019, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

This section of main and second has always had retail here. Why would you think now it wouldn't work?

The retail on Main near 2nd was pretty sketchy over the past few years, with the sorts of business surviving on low rent in buildings waiting to be redeveloped. It's unlikely that developers will want to offer low rents - at least not until the units have sat empty for a long while - so it will be different businesses that they hope to attract. MEC moving here may change the area, if the rivals currently up on W Broadway that offer similar gear choose to move near the new MEC store. Then we'll see a lot of empty stores on West Broadway, unless there's another 'theme' that opens up a set of stores. It's not obvious that we're missing anything though - the furniture stores cluster around South Granville, and the Boarding cluster is at W4th and Burrard.

GenWhy? · #6 Posted **Jan 30, 2019, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

This section of main and second has always had retail here. Why would you think now it wouldn't work?

Auto shops, offices. Changing slowly.

officedweller · #7 Posted **Jan 30, 2019, 9:14 PM**

Looks okay.
The offset panel trend is getting a bit too common these days.

The former Scotiabank at the opposite corner was often robbed.

What would help retail would be taller ceiling heights.
i.e. compare to the retail being built (on ground floor of lowrises) in Burnaby on Hastings in The Heights.
The ceiling heights look like they are 15-20 ft.

GenWhy? · #8 Posted **Jan 30, 2019, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Why so short?

Viewcone 22, or 23 from 6th Ave looking north.

urbanight93 · #9 Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 8:22 PM**

Any news on this development?

Sorry to bump.

madog222 · #10 Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanight93

Any news on this development?

Sorry to bump.

Rezoning application didn't go through.

Quote:

RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the application ... not be referred to Public Hearing because the applicant has made no offer of a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) or of any material public benefits in respect to the rezoning application, notwithstanding the increased development rights associated with the proposed application.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20210622/documents/rr4.pdf

Under the Broadway Plan the site now requires 20% of units below market rent for residential but office or hotel use is also permitted. Building height and density is capped at what was proposed here because of the view cone.

urbanight93 · #11 Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

Rezoning application didn't go through.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20210622/documents/rr4.pdf

Under the Broadway Plan the site now requires 20% of units below market rent for residential but office or hotel use is also permitted. Building height and density is capped at what was proposed here because of the view cone.

Interesting, thanks for the info.

Weird that the applicant didn't propose some sort of CAC.

mcj · #12 Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

Rezoning application didn't go through.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20210622/documents/rr4.pdf

Under the Broadway Plan the site now requires 20% of units below market rent for residential but office or hotel use is also permitted. Building height and density is capped at what was proposed here because of the view cone.

That view cone has to be the most ridiculous one of the lot. In the middle of a 6 lane stroad intersection with no pedestrian crossing, guess the CoV thinks drivers should be looking at the mountains and not the road.

madog222 · #13 Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanight93

Interesting, thanks for the info.

Weird that the applicant didn't propose some sort of CAC.

I guess they thought doing rental over strata was the community benefit.

WarrenC12 · #14 Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 9:14 PM**

That meeting was 18 months ago. Nothing since?

Changing City · #15 Posted **Jan 18, 2023, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

I guess they thought doing rental over strata was the community benefit.

Not really. The rezoning that Council decided not to hear was the second. "In February 2017, the same applicant team submitted a similar rezoning application, except that the previous project included 13 moderate income rental (MIR) units as the CAC offer. The 2017 and 2020 applications contained similar land use, height, density, and form of development.

The 2017 application was approved, in principle, following the Public Hearing on July 31, 2018. Subsequently, the owner chose not to bring forward the Housing Agreement to Council for approval and the CD-1 By-law was not enacted. The site remains under its original IC-2 zoning."

So there was already a done deal that had a CAC offered, and then Cressey decided not to run with it. While construction costs have risen, so have rents, so it's hard to see any justification for not having some sort of benefit for extra density.

urbanight93 · #16 Posted **Jan 19, 2023, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

Not really. The rezoning that Council decided not to hear was the second. "In February 2017, the same applicant team submitted a similar rezoning application, except that the previous project included 13 moderate income rental (MIR) units as the CAC offer. The 2017 and 2020 applications contained similar land use, height, density, and form of development.

The 2017 application was approved, in principle, following the Public Hearing on July 31, 2018. Subsequently, the owner chose not to bring forward the Housing Agreement to Council for approval and the CD-1 By-law was not enacted. The site remains under its original IC-2 zoning."

So there was already a done deal that had a CAC offered, and then Cressey decided not to run with it. While construction costs have risen, so have rents, so it's hard to see any justification for not having some sort of benefit for extra density.

Thanks for that Changing City. I was trying to reconcile the fact that there were two applications for this site, with one being approved and the other one not.

Good to know the City won't accept a bait & switch

Vin · #17 Posted **Jan 19, 2023, 9:04 PM**

This site with its proximity to everything would already have a skyscraper standing on it if this were Burnaby or any other suburban city.

Vancouver problem.

WarrenC12 · #18 Posted **Jan 19, 2023, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

This site with its proximity to everything would already have a skyscraper standing on it if this were Burnaby or any other suburban city.

Vancouver problem.

Main and 2nd? A skyscaper?