However, and unfortunately an economic/amenity study was not conducted, consequently the Leg-in-Boot square shopping node did not survive in its intended form.

If, indeed, the city takes “green” seriously proximity and convenience to amenity has to be the governing factor in density considerations.

Higher buildings have the advantage of smaller foot-print and economy of unit cost to height.

Leaky condos should no longer be an issue in new construction. Building envelope specifications and inspections establish safe guards.

Density without proximate amenity (shopping, health, transit public space etc) has no place in contemporary planning and I am surprised this is not reflected in this conversation.

I’m not certain what you are getting at with respect to the Glen Robin condo report. From what you’ve described, it sounds like a typical leaky condo situation, albeit a somewhat older development. How does that relate to your point re coops projects?

And while I am on the subject….there are also a number of non-profit rental and cooperative housing developments that should be considering some future redevelopment. These projects are now approaching 35 years of age (I know, since I approved them while with CMHC in the mid-70′s). The non-profits and coop residents do not have the funds to repair the buildings, (and the governments are not necessarily going to make funding available) and so a solution must be found.

I believe the solution may be to selectively redevelop portions of lower density sites to generate revenues from either higher value coop or condominium units. This will allow the NP’s and coops to fund the repairs and be able to remain in the projects. It will also result in a more intensive use of well located sites, and an increased supply of housing.

As I noted on this site last winter, there are many multi-family projects in BC, publicly owned, privately owned, and owned by the ‘third sector’ that have not been putting away adequate monies to undertake the cost of essential renovations. This is going to result in a problem with a degree of severity that will rival the ‘leaky condo’ problem, in terms of hardship for residents.

If anyone reading this is a resident of an older multi-family project, I hope you are questioning what ‘replacement reserves’ you have to undertake the necessary repairs that will inevitably be required. And if you want an idea of how serious the problem might get, just check out what happened to Glen Robin Place…

From a report prepared a few years ago:

The worst project with water problems is likely the 15 acre Glen Robin Place (Strata Plan NW-580) project in Burnaby. This California style development was built by the provincial government as subsidized rental housing in phases between 1975 and 1980. There are 96 apartment units in three story structures and 24 townhomes. The provincial government sold the project in 1995 and a private developer reorganized it into strata units and units were sold to homeowners and investors.
The architects and builders are long gone and the combination of investors and homeowners with their lifetime savings at risk is a difficult decision making combination. A condition survey in 1997, is an eye opener about the deterioration process of wood construction if buildings are poorly designed for the wet climate. There are problems with the exterior cladding, exterior walls, windows and sliding doors, party walls, decks, drainage, railings, kitchens, bathrooms, roofs. According to professional investigators, not even the concrete slabs are sound. One architect has commented that “it is likely the whole development will have to be demolished, possibly eliminating any investment the strata owners have.”

Guess what happened.

This is the right thing to do. A large project with a high concentration of very low income people is being turned into a much more balanced community. Revenues are being generated to fund the new social housing. The land is being developed in a more intensive way, with a high regard for ‘sustainable’ planning practices.

Little Mountain had the potential to be a model redevelopment. I personally disagreed with the decision to try and vacate the entire project before offering it for sale, but the Province was concerned about the potential for some ‘hold-outs’ who might try and block the future purchaser from proceeding. As it turns out, they were right to have this concern.

If the project was not so well located, adjacent to a park, in what is becoming an increasingly affluent area, then there would likely have been a broader mix of more affordable housing. Similarly, if there wasn’t such a need for additional funds to finance other social housing units, one might not have aspired to such high densities (Urbanismo-I thought the upper limit on an appropriate density might be in the order of 2.0 FSR, given the 0.6 FSR single family housing, and 1.2FSR along Main Street. However, like JJJ, I have not seen the plans, but understand that the density is higher than 2.0. (The density calculations are complicated by the basis of measurement….are the area of roads and parks included in the calculations, etc.)

For those not familiar with the situation, the community indicated that they did not want to see any buildings higher than 4 storeys. Again, I disagreed with this constraint, and understand that all of the submissions, prepared by some very responsible and talented architects, included buildings higher than 4 storeys.

I hope this additional information will be helpful to anyone who thinks the old decaying, outdated buildings at Little Mountain (that grossly under-used a well located site) should have been allowed to remain.

This would not only include rezoning for commercial storefronts south of 33rd Ave (therein promoting a walkable community), but improved transit, ideally a mid-level transit-oriented development based on the #3 and #33 buses.

A few years back the Main St Showcase project proposed bus signal-priority technology along with the sidewalk and bus stop improvements and new articulated trolleys, but that seems to have been dropped for some reason. It stands to reason it should be resurrected due to dense projects like Little Mountain and a host of other new low rise devlopents that have cropped up on the Main Street corridor.

“Thanks to both IanS and Frances for their
responses.”

You’re welcome.

“Yes, Ian, I get the context and the euphemisms
we all use daily to describe different housing
types. And I guess ‘market’ rolls off the tongue
easier than, say, ‘wildly overpriced due to a
speculative market run amok’. ”

Absolutely, it’s easier to say. Not only that, it describes something different than “market”. In this context, it’s generally used to express the view that market prices are too high, often in support of the assertion that we need more “affordable” housing.