Comments on: Debate over social-housing tower comes to Mount Pleasant http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/ Vancouver city life and politics Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:25:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: New resident of the area http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-34600 New resident of the area Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:28:39 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-34600 I am a new resident to Mount Pleasant and am curious to know what has been decided about this development. I agree that the scale of the development needs to be reconsidered. With the proposed development at Main and second, the numerous housing already in place in Mount Pleasant and this new one at Broadway and Fraser, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of supported housing in one area of the city. I too wonder what neighborhood changes will occur considering the concentration of individuals who are all struggling with mental illness and addiction issues. it seems that with all the research available regarding successful urban planning, that the city would listen. Instead it appears they just want to get more bang for their buck at the expense of the success of the project. sadly, in the long run, the expenses will likely be more when this social experiment fails. I am a new resident to Mount Pleasant and am curious to know what has been decided about this development. I agree that the scale of the development needs to be reconsidered. With the proposed development at Main and second, the numerous housing already in place in Mount Pleasant and this new one at Broadway and Fraser, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of supported housing in one area of the city. I too wonder what neighborhood changes will occur considering the concentration of individuals who are all struggling with mental illness and addiction issues. it seems that with all the research available regarding successful urban planning, that the city would listen. Instead it appears they just want to get more bang for their buck at the expense of the success of the project. sadly, in the long run, the expenses will likely be more when this social experiment fails.

]]> By: Loo http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-33980 Loo Sun, 20 Jun 2010 02:56:31 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-33980 Just joined this group. I am totally in support of the BRYC and believe that expanding their space and services is long overdue. I also feel that social housing units in the GVRD need to be increased. Where I have questions is a) The height of the building b) The lack of mixed units. I am unsure of the value of concentrating people in social housing units. Let us remember that the the projects of Chicago were built with the intent to improve the neighborhood and provid social housing yet ended creating considerable problems. These projects have now been raised and replaced with mixed neighborhood housing. The Chicago projects were massive in comparison and the socio-economic reality very different but it does raise the question, is bigger better? Where are the mixed housing projects that were one of the cornerstones of the municipalities platform on social housing in Vancouver? As a Mount Pleasant resident and a supporter of the BYRC I hope that we can support youth and the communities challenges. At the same time I would like to question the scale of this project and I would like to ask the members of this group why they believe such a large scale project is necessary? Just joined this group. I am totally in support of the BRYC and believe that expanding their space and services is long overdue. I also feel that social housing units in the GVRD need to be increased. Where I have questions is a) The height of the building b) The lack of mixed units. I am unsure of the value of concentrating people in social housing units. Let us remember that the the projects of Chicago were built with the intent to improve the neighborhood and provid social housing yet ended creating considerable problems. These projects have now been raised and replaced with mixed neighborhood housing. The Chicago projects were massive in comparison and the socio-economic reality very different but it does raise the question, is bigger better? Where are the mixed housing projects that were one of the cornerstones of the municipalities platform on social housing in Vancouver? As a Mount Pleasant resident and a supporter of the BYRC I hope that we can support youth and the communities challenges. At the same time I would like to question the scale of this project and I would like to ask the members of this group why they believe such a large scale project is necessary?

]]> By: mushroom.treatment http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-31339 mushroom.treatment Mon, 31 May 2010 22:30:07 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-31339 I agree totally with gasp // Jan 21, 2010 and Joseph Jones // Jan 21, 2010. That's also been my experience dealing with City Hall and developers in my neighbourhood. There is no meaningful consultation with the citizens of Vancouver at all. This is wrong. I agree totally with gasp // Jan 21, 2010 and Joseph Jones // Jan 21, 2010. That’s also been my experience dealing with City Hall and developers in my neighbourhood. There is no meaningful consultation with the citizens of Vancouver at all. This is wrong.

]]> By: owl http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-17281 owl Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:49:02 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-17281 Megan-This was in an e-mail from Bev Chew for Peter Burch supposedly to all CLG members. I also got a phone call a day or two earlier. I can say the feeling I get is they will not want to deal with this tower even though all their "community involvement" showed nobody wants it. They have gone ahead & illustrated it as a tower http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cpp/mountpleasant/shopping/pdf/businesschangescenarios.pdf Megan-This was in an e-mail from Bev Chew for Peter Burch supposedly to all CLG members. I also got a phone call a day or two earlier. I can say the feeling I get is they will not want to deal with this tower even though all their “community involvement” showed nobody wants it. They have gone ahead & illustrated it as a tower
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cpp/mountpleasant/shopping/pdf/businesschangescenarios.pdf

]]> By: Megan http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-17277 Megan Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:13:40 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-17277 Owl - I will spread the word about the meeting on the 4th. Thank you for the dates as interestingly, I have not been informed of these. Owl – I will spread the word about the meeting on the 4th. Thank you for the dates as interestingly, I have not been informed of these.

]]> By: owl http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-17227 owl Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:27:28 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-17227 Confirmed. Thursday, Feb 4, CLG meeting Native Friendship Centre, 5th and Scotia, 7-930 pm. Also meetings coming up, Feb. 10, Mar. 4, Mar. 9. It would be interesting to see democracy in action & to have some inspiration from specialists like Lewis, MB. Confirmed. Thursday, Feb 4, CLG meeting Native Friendship Centre, 5th and Scotia, 7-930 pm. Also meetings coming up, Feb. 10, Mar. 4, Mar. 9. It would be interesting to see democracy in action & to have some inspiration from specialists like Lewis, MB.

]]> By: owl http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-17224 owl Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:00:18 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-17224 Come on, Empire Stadium? West Side soccer? We have a major potential disaster at Broadway/Fraser. Let's keep on topic on the off chance the words may be useful for our case. If this is about trying to get a less-high building, say five or six stories, and fewer high risk people brought to the corner, say 50 or so, and insisting on 24 marketable units of housing in the project, then as I see it we perhaps should make a sensible, economical suggestion for an alternative way of housing 50 or so at- risk- of -homelessness people that would have been in the tower in some other housing form, say adaptive re-use of nearby lowrise, or something city owned not nearby, or any other workable solution. A revolution of our urban design as applied to neighbourhoods is a great need. The dialogue on how to go about it is crucial in the long term & the commentaries by specialists on here & on other articles city wide is most necessary. But We do have to zero in. Right now we need to get the words & images of protest & alternative solutions in front of the faces of the people who have it within their mandate to make some changes to this one plan at 761-795 East Broadway. I know it is part of something bigger. I know there is something kind of unsettling about the two fires right down the street at Kingsway & at Main, I know the community plan is for all of Mt Pleasant, but right now we got to just dig in as a local group to save this corner. We have to hammer away at the folly of it. We have to not deviate. We shall not fail nor falter (Sorry, Eh?) We are gaining strength. We should be able to find a straightforward solution for mitigating the tower travesty. Remember it was people against rezoning that saved Strathcona from a water front freeway, it was the same to save Stanley Park entrance from becoming behemoth towers between Georgia St and the waterfront, @Megan, Bev Chew is calling CLG members. they are trying to get us back to CLG meetings starting early Feb. They are saying timeline next fall for having draft comm. plan before council. They are saying there are many other aspect to the plan beside the B'way/Fraser corridor. You kow what is going on, when you don't hear from Peter Burch. Are you still intersted in attending the CLG.?@all, an idea would be to get CLG members to spread the word to everybody (any group or individual including the people who don't use their names but organize by capital letters ) to sort of en mass delegate to the next CLG meeting at the Native Friendship center and make it another article for Frances Bula. Lots of young people please who have to live with these city decisions. Come on, Empire Stadium? West Side soccer? We have a major potential disaster at Broadway/Fraser. Let’s keep on topic on the off chance the words may be useful for our case. If this is about trying to get a less-high building, say five or six stories, and fewer high risk people brought to the corner, say 50 or so, and insisting on 24 marketable units of housing in the project, then as I see it we perhaps should make a sensible, economical suggestion for an alternative way of housing 50 or so at- risk- of -homelessness people that would have been in the tower in some other housing form, say adaptive re-use of nearby lowrise, or something city owned not nearby, or any other workable solution. A revolution of our urban design as applied to neighbourhoods is a great need. The dialogue on how to go about it is crucial in the long term & the commentaries by specialists on here & on other articles city wide is most necessary. But We do have to zero in. Right now we need to get the words & images of protest & alternative solutions in front of the faces of the people who have it within their mandate to make some changes to this one plan at 761-795 East Broadway. I know it is part of something bigger. I know there is something kind of unsettling about the two fires right down the street at Kingsway & at Main, I know the community plan is for all of Mt Pleasant, but right now we got to just dig in as a local group to save this corner. We have to hammer away at the folly of it. We have to not deviate. We shall not fail nor falter (Sorry, Eh?) We are gaining strength. We should be able to find a straightforward solution for mitigating the tower travesty. Remember it was people against rezoning that saved Strathcona from a water front freeway, it was the same to save Stanley Park entrance from becoming behemoth towers between Georgia St and the waterfront, @Megan, Bev Chew is calling CLG members. they are trying to get us back to CLG meetings starting early Feb. They are saying timeline next fall for having draft comm. plan before council. They are saying there are many other aspect to the plan beside the B’way/Fraser corridor. You kow what is going on, when you don’t hear from Peter Burch. Are you still intersted in attending the CLG.?@all, an idea would be to get CLG members to spread the word to everybody (any group or individual including the people who don’t use their names but organize by capital letters ) to sort of en mass delegate to the next CLG meeting at the Native Friendship center and make it another article for Frances Bula. Lots of young people please who have to live with these city decisions.

]]> By: Bill Lee http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-17190 Bill Lee Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:54:54 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-17190 Another example (bad) of the planning consultation. The northeast side just got an (English only!!) postcard, dated 22 Jan, received 26 Jan, about Development Application No. DE413600 This is the "temporary" (ha!) stadium with a 'time-limited permit' as it says in the postcard, on the old Empire Stadium (another 'Games'!) site. And however here it says that consultation means nothing at the 2 hour Feb 4 meeting at the Hastings Community Centre, for "Council endorsed the proposal to use this site... by resolution on January 21, 2010. So it's F.U. East Van, you get 40,000 cars for fireworks and drunken sports every week. It's already been decided. I would have thought that Susan Anton would have pushed to have Memorial Park West made the side to bring added business to the poor of Dunbar. It is twice area as you can see with the http://Acme.com planimeter Empire Stadium site 4.341 hectares Memorial Park West 31st and Dunbar 8.095 hectares Go for it, Susan! Bring soccer to the West side masses. Another example (bad) of the planning consultation.

The northeast side just got an (English only!!) postcard, dated 22 Jan, received 26 Jan, about Development Application No. DE413600

This is the “temporary” (ha!) stadium with a ‘time-limited permit’ as it says in the postcard, on the old Empire Stadium (another ‘Games’!) site.

And however here it says that consultation means nothing at the 2 hour Feb 4 meeting at the Hastings Community Centre, for “Council endorsed the proposal to use this site… by resolution on January 21, 2010.

So it’s F.U. East Van, you get 40,000 cars for fireworks and drunken sports every week. It’s already been decided.
I would have thought that Susan Anton would have pushed to have Memorial Park West made the side to bring added business to the poor of Dunbar. It is twice area as you can see with the http://Acme.com planimeter
Empire Stadium site 4.341 hectares
Memorial Park West 31st and Dunbar 8.095 hectares

Go for it, Susan! Bring soccer to the West side masses.

]]> By: Megan http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-17189 Megan Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:32:54 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-17189 MB and Lewis....I sure hope you plan to send in your comments to the City and/or speak at the public hearing. I was speaking with the Urban Design Panel rep. from the City at the Jan 20th open house. She was the only one who I thought was remotely interested in hearing concerns about the project in its current form. Her role as it was explained to me is : "The Development Planner is an Architect who is responsible for analyzing and responding to the proposed form and design of the building. The Planner will provide direction regarding form and design to be included in the report to City Council". Anyway, she said that she will "consider" the comments that come in from the public when making her report to Council. (Hence my urging of you to send in something to the City). Give me urban design all the way from Main St to Fraser - what a wasteland that area is and has been for 20 years. Heck while we're at it give me urban design from Clarke to Fraser too. Anyway, I digress.... When I asked the Urban Design rep. if she would be looking at the information the City already has from the 2.5 years of work we have already done in the "vision planning" process, she said she would look at this info but, as this information hasn't been presented to, or ratified by Council yet, she doesn't have a "framework" to go on at this point. I said so essentially the City can build anything they want....she repeated "at this point I don't have a framework to go on". What the.....!! Ok.....so, I sent in a request to Peter Burch at the City who has been heading the visioning process, to provide me with a time line for when this will be wrapped up and presented to Council.....not surprisingly, I haven't heard back from him. Why are these two processes (i.e. vision planning and re-zoning of Fraser/Broadway) not being done simultaneously? It's not a hard stretch to believe that the City is counting on this dis-connect between the 2 processes....it looks like Gasp is right.....the decision about this project was made long ago and the visioning process is just window dressing.... And one last comment ...."senior governments can and do act against local government (hence local people)"..... I asked the BC Housing rep at the open house whether BC Housing would still build the project, if the height and density were altered to be more in line with the visioning process. He said "yes"...they will build whatever comes forth from Council.....so, it looks to me that it's not Senior government acting against the local government...more evidence to suggest that the City has decided long ago what they plan to build on the most neglected corner in the middle of the most neglected stretch of our neighbourhood.... Lewis and MB, please send in your well considered comments to the City....Lewis...you extended an invite to meet and discuss urban design issues to someone else on this blog. would you consider meeting with me? MB and Lewis….I sure hope you plan to send in your comments to the City and/or speak at the public hearing. I was speaking with the Urban Design Panel rep. from the City at the Jan 20th open house. She was the only one who I thought was remotely interested in hearing concerns about the project in its current form. Her role as it was explained to me is : “The Development Planner is an Architect who is responsible for analyzing and responding to the proposed form and design of the building. The Planner will provide direction regarding form and design to be included in the report to City Council”.
Anyway, she said that she will “consider” the comments that come in from the public when making her report to Council. (Hence my urging of you to send in something to the City). Give me urban design all the way from Main St to Fraser – what a wasteland that area is and has been for 20 years. Heck while we’re at it give me urban design from Clarke to Fraser too. Anyway, I digress…. When I asked the Urban Design rep. if she would be looking at the information the City already has from the 2.5 years of work we have already done in the “vision planning” process, she said she would look at this info but, as this information hasn’t been presented to, or ratified by Council yet, she doesn’t have a “framework” to go on at this point. I said so essentially the City can build anything they want….she repeated “at this point I don’t have a framework to go on”. What the…..!! Ok…..so, I sent in a request to Peter Burch at the City who has been heading the visioning process, to provide me with a time line for when this will be wrapped up and presented to Council…..not surprisingly, I haven’t heard back from him. Why are these two processes (i.e. vision planning and re-zoning of Fraser/Broadway) not being done simultaneously? It’s not a hard stretch to believe that the City is counting on this dis-connect between the 2 processes….it looks like Gasp is right…..the decision about this project was made long ago and the visioning process is just window dressing…. And one last comment ….”senior governments can and do act against local government (hence local people)”….. I asked the BC Housing rep at the open house whether BC Housing would still build the project, if the height and density were altered to be more in line with the visioning process. He said “yes”…they will build whatever comes forth from Council…..so, it looks to me that it’s not Senior government acting against the local government…more evidence to suggest that the City has decided long ago what they plan to build on the most neglected corner in the middle of the most neglected stretch of our neighbourhood…. Lewis and MB, please send in your well considered comments to the City….Lewis…you extended an invite to meet and discuss urban design issues to someone else on this blog. would you consider meeting with me?

]]> By: just sayin' http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/debate-over-social-housing-tower-comes-to-mount-pleasant/comment-page-2/#comment-17188 just sayin' Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:30:34 +0000 http://www.francesbula.com/?p=2395#comment-17188 The height of the proposed building is completely ridiculous and totally out of reasonable scale for the area. Beyond that I don't take issue with the proposed uses or function of the building site. Fraser Street needs more services for the underclass - they were there first. I just find it hard to believe the proposed use will get full follow-through. Call me cynical, but considering the direction most of these projects have taken in recent years (# of promised social housing units dwindling the closer the project gets to it's budget limit), combined with the spectacular views from all but the first two floors of the proposed building, I think it unlikely that in the long run this project will lead to anything other than more high-rise condos, with increasingly expensive views, and less affordable housing along the Bway corridor. Grumpy home-owners take heart! The value of your property will likely increase as ramshackle 3-story stucco monstrosities are leveled to make room for gated townhomes. The height of the proposed building is completely ridiculous and totally out of reasonable scale for the area. Beyond that I don’t take issue with the proposed uses or function of the building site. Fraser Street needs more services for the underclass – they were there first. I just find it hard to believe the proposed use will get full follow-through. Call me cynical, but considering the direction most of these projects have taken in recent years (# of promised social housing units dwindling the closer the project gets to it’s budget limit), combined with the spectacular views from all but the first two floors of the proposed building, I think it unlikely that in the long run this project will lead to anything other than more high-rise condos, with increasingly expensive views, and less affordable housing along the Bway corridor. Grumpy home-owners take heart! The value of your property will likely increase as ramshackle 3-story stucco monstrosities are leveled to make room for gated townhomes.

]]>