77 responses so far ↓

• 1 Joseph Jones // Jun 30, 2010 at 12:06 am

  Hey Jo-Anne Pringle! That sounds like the olden days in Norquay. May stamina and hope in the face of all odds remain with you. Your neighbourhood is not alone in this maelstrom.

• 2 Tiktaalik // Jun 30, 2010 at 12:20 am

  That’s really cool how efficiently they organized a neighbourhood group.

  It sounds like they’ve gotten a lot accomplished so far.

  I can’t believe the city has gone on for so long without notifying nearby renters about upcoming projects. It would certainly be good if that gets fixed up.

• 3 CE Hoxie // Jun 30, 2010 at 1:21 am

  If I understand this correctly, a huge portion of this community’s population has thus far been ignored in terms of notification. This area has a significant amount of 3-story walk-up renters, unusual given how far west this community lies. These renters need to be notified of (proposed) changes to the area and be given a chance to have their opinions heard. These families and individuals make up a large percentage of the area’s residents.

  Furthermore, many of these renters face regular rental increases despite living in buildings that are not routinely improved or even well maintained. In my opinion, the large rental population (mostly south of 70th Avenue) doesn’t need the Safeway knocked down and towers erected in it’s place. Many of these families struggle financially and purchasing an apartment in one of these towers is not going to be an option. Too much development too fast is going to squeeze these families out of the community, when really what is necessary is affordable housing of a decent-standard.

• 4 gmgw // Jun 30, 2010 at 2:00 am

  That Safeway at 70th & Granville (along with 70th & Oak, already one of the worst traffic bottlenecks in the entire city– so let’s add some massive densification! Makes perfect sense…) has been allowed to get a bit run down, but it’s still the only supermarket for 25 blocks or more in any direction (unless you count the Choices store on 57th as a “supermarket”). Considering how many seniors and other financially disadvantaged people live nearby in Marpole (possibly the closest thing to an “affordable neighbourhood” remaining on the entire West side), and would be hit hard by Safeway’s closure, to my way of thinking that certainly qualifies it as an essential neighbourhood amenity of sorts. Of course, whichever bastard developer it is that’s running this up the flagpole is probably hoping to attract a Whole Foods or Urban Fare outlet for the development, to attract the north-of-70th/west-of-Granville crowd… God, I wish I could get the hell out of this blighted city once and for all rather than having to watch its ongoing destruction. I was already in a depressed mood tonight. This just made it worse.
  gmgw

• 5 Marcus // Jun 30, 2010 at 3:37 am

  Very impressed with the organizational skills and the positive voice with options brought forward to the council. Congratulations and keep the work . For translation of work check with the new immigrant organization Mosaic on Commercial Drive or SUCCESS on Fraser St. Both are phenomenal resources to the city.

• 6 Joe Just Joe // Jun 30, 2010 at 6:45 am

  The Safeway would reopen at Granville and 70th but would be closed during construction obviously. From previous experience at two other Safeways that were redone, Safeway staff have been onsite to shuttle customers to the next nearest Safeway. Don’t know if that will be the case here or not, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was, they tend to have better costumer service then most supermarkets.

• 7 Urbanismo // Jun 30, 2010 at 7:11 am

  Is Vancouver becoming a failed city?

  http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/thu.future/vancouver.failed.html

• 8 Larry // Jun 30, 2010 at 7:43 am

  I was wondering when this slop would hit the fan. In large part the problem is because this Council (abetted by the City Manager and Director of Planning) has by-passed the ususal Major Projects planning process that was founded on consultation with neighbourhoods. That process started with identifying principles and goals to guide the development plans – no drawings until principles had been established to guide the design. Now it’s all about what Mike Magee in the Mayor’s office likes. Poor Marpole is a fish in a bucket – as others said above, it’s the last area of affordable land on the West side and developers are taking advantage of both – the affordable land and the West side location. If the community isn’t successful in changing this new “business as usual” approach, this is only the beginning of what will happen.

• 9 kermit // Jun 30, 2010 at 8:47 am

  It’s curious how residents of Vancouver are so opposed to density everywhere and anywhere yet it’s due in large part to the density that makes this City so great.

  I was at the Cambie Corridor planning workshop last weekend and people railed and bemoaned anything higher than a townhouse right next to King Ed station, no density on King Ed. Only on Cambie, and only low density.

  One main suggestion? Demolish the rental housing along Cambie and 21-22-23rd and put density there. It was certainly interesting watching numerous people explain how they moved to the neighbourhood 5 to 10 years ago because it’s quiet, etc… So tear down that rental housing cause it’s already zoned higher density and it’s on Cambie. Then this one woman stands up, says she’s been renting there for 24 (27? can’t remember) years. That certainly shut a few people up for at least a minute.

  My family’s been in this neighbourhood for 4 generations and I was one of the few in favour of density. At the workshop I was on the defensive trying to explain why and I, along with the City just got threatened with legal action if it happens lol. What’s with this irrational fear?

• 10 Urbanismo // Jun 30, 2010 at 9:11 am

  @ kermit . . .

  Density is okay but when a quiet neighbourhood is confronted with grotesque abrupt, out-of- scale, change residents become understandably insecure.

  In the case of this thing PCI is proposing the first thing that attracts my attention is the “high street. There can be no high street on private property. That is perfidious manipulation, by which Vancouver has been changed beyond recognition: and not for the better.

  Furthermore density does not depend on multi-stories.

  This is ad hoc-ism, not planning . . .

• 11 Pondering // Jun 30, 2010 at 9:14 am

  I agree that notifying renters is a great idea – but how would the City do it? The renters are not on the property tax roll (so names/addresses are unknown) and most people reject unaddressed admail.

  ??

• 12 spartikus // Jun 30, 2010 at 9:29 am

  As a layman, when I follow these conversations I would very much like to hear concrete alternatives. It’s fine to object to a 24 storey tower for the reasons given. But when I read:

  Furthermore density does not depend on multi-stories.

  That’s great. But what does it mean? What would it look like? How long would non-multi-storey density last the neighbourhood and the city before population pressures build again?

  Etc.

  Cheers!

• 13 Ian // Jun 30, 2010 at 9:36 am

  Good point Urbanismo. Density can be achieved simply by allowing more 3-4-5 story development. Look at London, or Paris. Those are dense cities but for the most part the density is not in high-rise towers. I don’t really have anything against high-rise towers, per se, but in Vancouver it seems that anything short of that building form is considered low-density. I think the Cambie corridor should densify (full disclosure – I don’t live there), but with the exception of a couple of main hubs (Broadway and 41st I would think) I think that densification could occur more naturally in a lower built form.

• 14 Urbanismo // Jun 30, 2010 at 9:50 am

  @ sparetikus . . . “It’s fine to object to a 24 storey tower for the reasons given.”

  Yes, we on the other side of the corporate invoice, i.e. we don’t get paid for our input, but nevertheless have the experience to see thru the hype, are at a disadvantage.

  All I can say is, if PCI had hired me I would have designed a much, much more responsive community design . . . and of course that is a red flag to the corporate side of the business that sees the likes of me as a lose cannon for that very reason.

• 15 Urbanismo // Jun 30, 2010 at 9:59 am

  @ Ian. . . yup but I fear the Cambie corridor will then become just another strip of “medium density, i.e. sprawl of a different kind.

  I would prefer to see development, including Marpole become identifiable, walking neighbourhoods, “quartiers, and if that includes sensitively integrated 24 stories as part of the mix . . . no prob.

  But that is not happening.

  The Hall is responding ad hoc to whatever bush fire erupts at any given time and that is not planning!

• 16 kermit // Jun 30, 2010 at 10:30 am

  I agree. I wondered at the meeting why they were planning for the Corridor–that is from the arterial to the first lane in this phase, then for the streets behind in future phases. They are obviously tied to one another but the planning process is separating them entirely.

  I also wonder why they are speaking in terms of walking radius to stations yet planning linear density along the arterials. Why put a high density at say 29th and Cambie yet not look at higher density at 24th and one block west or east of Cambie. Those seem to be conflicting principles.

• 17 Kirk // Jun 30, 2010 at 10:57 am

  SE False Creek is going thru a height review. Just a few years after the original ODP, they suddenly changed their minds and want to make it higher. What changed in just a couple of years? Were they so incompetent creating the initial plan that they now had to revise things so soon?

  Well, the City went broke. And, personally, the cynic in me can’t help but think that they approved one thing, hoping that there wouldn’t be many complaints. Then later on, after rezoning was approved, they could sneak in more height later on. I wouldn’t be surprised if they relax the height restrictions higher in a couple more years. So, for Marpole, it could start with 24, 14, and 9. But, by the end of it, it could go higher, especially if they build it in phases. I’m sure we’ll hear something along the lines of “economic times have changed, no longer viable unless the density is increased”. They’re already saying this on the NE side of False Creek.

  Here is the SEFC review. There’s a meeting coming up on July 20.
  http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100622/documents/p1.pdf

  Here’s a quote from it:
  “Among those community members who provided comments, most participants were generally unsupportive of the increased height regardless of the potential for increased community amenities. In contrast the participating development industry representatives were supportive of the increased heights, the design guidelines, and the idea of developer-funded amenities.”

  So, the public doesn’t want it, but the developers do. Naturally, that means staff are recommending the height increase. Why do they bother having public consultations?

  Hopefully, with Marpole, the increase in density will add more vibrancy. SEFC has the risk of turning into another Coal Harbour of empty vacation condos for rich foreigners. Same goes for River Green in Richmond.

• 18 Tiktaalik // Jun 30, 2010 at 11:25 am

  @Kirk

  Thanks for posting those comments. This is real interesting stuff. Already with some of the posted zoning proposals around SE False Creek I was a bit shocked to see the heights proposed. For example I think whatever is being discussed for the Opsal Steel building is 24 floors and I recall seeing another building on 1st I think that was proposed at 15 floors. I’m a real amateur at this sort of thing so I don’t know how it’s all measured, but counting windows and guessing I figure that what’s currently built at the Olympic Village is around 10-12 floors? I’m not sure what the original community plan is for SE False Creek but does 24 floors fit into that? It seems really odd to me to build a building double the size of what’s currently at the Olympic Village. I was definitely surprised to see such a leap in height considering the location of the building on the flats and considering that the smaller feel of the Olympic village has been so highly praised. As you say it seems like a recreation of Coal Harbour.

  Are these further height increases proposed linked to these buildings or are those buildings in line with the community plan for that area?

  Reading the PDF you posted the Feedback comments on the 6th page nail what I was thinking.

• 19 Dan Cooper // Jun 30, 2010 at 12:19 pm

  It’s interesting to hear from kermit about the Cambie Corridor Planning Workshop that happened (I now find, looking it up on the City website) a few blocks from me on June 26. Who knew? It looks like some kind of notice went out in the neighbourhood, but I certainly didn’t receive one.

  I like Ian’s suggestion: keep the heights to four or five stories, and as kermit says maybe spread a bit off the main streets, rather than building eight stories or much much more.

• 20 Bill McCreery // Jun 30, 2010 at 12:53 pm

  @Larry: “In large part the problem is because this Council (abetted by the City Manager and Director of Planning) has by-passed the ususal Major Projects planning process that was founded on consultation with neighbourhoods. That process started with identifying principles and goals to guide the development plans – no drawings until principles had been established to guide the design.”

  & @kermit’s ?ing the planning process.

  Larry has identified one of the fundamental flaws in, not only the Gateway proposal but, the entire current planning process right across the City [including the flawed 3 phase Cambie Corridor process referred to by Kermit]. By Council entertaining spot re-zonings they have opened the floodgates which is turning the once relatively stable property development market into a crap shoot. This is not good for the nieghbourhoods, the city, nor in the long run, the developers. The smart ones know this.

  Based on my experience working with the City as an architect I am astounded that the developer has been allowed to proceed the such a level of detailed design without consultation & without “identifying principles & goals” [maybe they have, we just aren't privy to them]. A month ago @ a WEN meeting with Brent Toderian, I challenged him to withdraw support for the WE STIR projects [he had just said the Planning Department would not be supporting further WE STIR applications]. He refused, saying ‘they are to far into the approval process’. Does this mean because the developer has proceeded to this level of detailed design on Gateway that it to is ‘to far down the approval process’? I gather [correct me if not] the City has accepted +/-$300,000 from PCI to cover the City’s rezoning approval processing costs. Does this further compromise the City?

  All of these sagas repeating over & over throughout the City reveal clearly there is a huge deficiency in the the entire planning process as it is currently being administered. Is this a result of undue political interference? Is it due to the lack of the capabilities of of planning staff? Or, a combination?

  Whatever the cause, given the multitude of massively over-scaled spot rezonings right across the City which are coming up for public hearing approvals over the summer & fall, this deeply flawed function must be corrected now. Waiting until the 2011 election is to late. A great deal of damage is being done & much more will be done to the livability of our neighbourhoods if it is allowed to continue.

• 21 storm // Jun 30, 2010 at 1:29 pm

  @bill…the city has accepted $300,000?? It’s called a processing fee. Every application comes in with one. Sheesh.

• 22 Living in the West End // Jun 30, 2010 at 1:37 pm

  An opportuniy exists to meet planning staff this afternoon – the following email was sent to over 1500 email addresses provided by over 7000 signees of the”No Rezoning Without a Comprehensive Plan” petition circulated in the West End.

  Dear Friend of Vancouver’s West End,

  Here is an important event notice.

  Open House for Rezoning of 1030 Denman Street (Coast Plaza Hotel)
  Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010
  Time: 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm
  Place: West End Community Centre, Denman Room, 870 Denman Street
  More info: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/1030denman/index.htm

  What: Brook + Associates Inc. has applied to the City to rezone this site to permit conversion of the existing hotel rooms and facilities to residential (rental), office and retail uses. The existing Denman Mall would remain unchanged. 314 Rental units would be created. At the Open House, view the application and talk to City staff and applicant.

  Our opinion. Creation of new rentals could be a good thing for the West End, but our community needs to ask for more information. What are the benefits and costs of this proposal? Will our community lose jobs? Will we gain community amenities? When will this happen? Are there any future risks to the community if the conversion goes ahead?

  We encourage people to go to this open house and complete comment cards (also available online). Also, please share your findings with us, so we can share information as a community. This application is one of several that could cumulatively have major impacts on our community. It pays to become informed.

  ****************
  West End Neighbours
  http://www.WestEndNeighbours.ca
  West End, Vancouver, the gateway to Stanley Park and English Bay

  Our purpose is to preserve the quality of life, the distinct, diverse character, and the heritage of the West End. City Hall is working to move several major rezoning applications through Council. Some proposals over-ride our West End community’s existing community policy plan and zoning guidelines for height, density, and community character — guidelines that were adopted years ago through a full consultative process. Many people can accept change, but believe it should be done through fair and transparent consultation, in good faith, and with respect to community wishes. You can keep up to date by visiting our website from time to time. We aim to make the City’s decision-making processes more transparent and democratic by providing information from the community, for the community. You deserve to have a say in major land-use decisions as important as these.

• 23 Urbanismo // Jun 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm

  @bill…the city has accepted $300,000??

  Yup, the good doctor is watching the financial markets.

  You should too . . .

  She’s building up the civic stash ‘cos she sees storm clouds . . . especially the OV boondoggle!

• 24 Jo-Anne // Jun 30, 2010 at 3:42 pm

  Hello all – I am the person who e-mailed the update on the Marpole neighbourhood meeting. I’d just like to add a few comments based on the posts I’ve seen here:

  Spartikus – unfortunately we aren’t talking about a 24 story tower – we are taking about 370 feet in finished height; this tower is also 250 wide. It will cast enormous shadows that move around to different areas throughout the day. To put it into perspective, at certain times of the day, this tower will cast a shadow over a neighbourhood elementary school that shares ground with a park. That school and park are 1 1/2 blocks west of the proposed tower and equivalent to 5 blocks north. This tower will shadow that entire distance. It is a huge tower. This is only one Rezoning Application, but others are sitting in the wings; in the not too distant future 3 corners of Marine and Cambie will be dressed with towers. The folks down here aren’t saying don’t build here, and we’re not saying don’t densify. Unless anyone living reading these posts living in Vancouver still happens to be living on 4 acres of land in a one room farm shack with a crop duster in their driveway, we are all living in one form or another of densification. But what has happened here, is that one project was designed, that project supported the original Rezoning Application – there was an open house to support that Application. Then in March of this year the project very quietly underwent a massive redesign which resulted in a completely different tower and basically a completely different project. The neighbourhood was not notified in any way at all and in fact the renderings and posted information for the old proposal remained at the site for two months after that redesign, until the residents uncovered that there was a different proposal on the table. Then and only then, did the City respond, they advised the Applicant to remove the outdated information and then the City hosted another Open House. That Open House was never apart of the originally scheduled Public Process or the timeline. On May 3rd of this year, almost a full month and a half after the project has been redesigned, – the Applicant re-submitted their Rezoning Application with respect to the current design. So as you can see, there is much more going on down here than a discussion about the tower’s height and design. There is a serious issue with how the community consultation and public process has been handled. Which brings my comment back to yours – we would have loved the opportunity to provide feedback in the early community consultation “brainstorming with the residents phase” to provide feedback about tower heights and what type of heights the residents would feel comfortable supporting. But that phase didn’t happen. What we are asking for is an opportunity to come to the table and work with this process instead of having to battle it.

  Kermit – there is a simple solution to notification. The City could easily notify every single residence, rental, co-op or owner occupied by doing a mailout by postal code only. Realtors do it all the time. The City can easily expand it’s notification area and it’s qualification criteria for notification – - if it wants to.

  Please don’t confuse our neighbourhood’s message with other neighbourhoods along the Line. The residents of King Edward are not facing the same issues as us. We are facing a Rezoning Application that is quickly making its way through the process and leaving the voice of our community behind. King Edward is in a much earlier phase, where I believe there isn’t even a Rezoning Application filed.

  I’d like to see those lands being developed into something useful, that many people will enjoy. But the process needs to be done right and every development needs to compliment the area that it will be built in, and proper concessions need to be made to reduce overall negative impact. Those terms should apply to every neighbourhood in Vancouver – not just Marpole.

• 25 Bill McCreery // Jun 30, 2010 at 3:59 pm

  @storm, I am well aware there are RZ, DP & BP processing fees but, I’m referring to the sometime practice the City has of charging developers of large projects additional fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I recall hearing something of this, I believe for the Gateway proposal but, have no specifics. Would appreciate more accurate info.

  The City is not open about such things & should be. The project info sheets on-line should have, in addition to project data, the financials as well [RZ, DP, BP fees paid, LIFT paid/to be paid, STIR & other concessions from City to developer, etc.] so voters are truly informed. The concessions alone for the WE Maxine’s project amount to $20,535 / STIR unit of unaffordable rental housing [$2.70/ sf, WE range is $1.50 - $2.00/ sf]. In addition, Council, for reasons I have not seen, forgave the $4,327,960 to $4,637,100 in LIFT payments to the developer, adding another +/-$4.45M onto the $20M profit [52%] for this relatively small project.

• 26 Bill McCreery // Jun 30, 2010 at 4:05 pm

  Further to above, Concessions on Maxines total +/-$5.45 for this single project. Multiply that over 20 projects / year. This affects your & my tax bill & not beneficially & not insignificantly.

  On the other side, when they do manage to get LIFT payments, where does that money go? General revenue? Mayor’s slush fund? Bike lanes? Chicken coups?

• 27 Kirk // Jun 30, 2010 at 6:55 pm

  Tiktaalik , from the PDF, it looks like the Opsal site will have a 15 storey building on it.

  Regarding my Coal Harbour comment, I remember several years ago when SEFC was in the concept stage. My wife and I envisioned living in some funky LEED building, chatting it up with our neighbours as we grew beans in our rooftop gardens. Now, I think it’s even more high-end than Coal Harbour.

  Perhaps, I’m mistaken when I thought the concept of having all this increase in density was so that average commuting suburbanites would give up their cars and move closer to town. But, all the marketing seems geared toward the world-travelling jetset to buy vacation homes. Have you been to the presentation centre? Sub-zero and Miele appliances are standard. I feel kind of foolish that I once fantasized about trading compost with the people buying in there.

  Coincidentally, I got this development email today. At the risk of sounding like a realtor, which I’m not, please watch the video and tell me what you think:
  http://www.morgancrossing.ca

  It’s a bit consumerish, living in a mall, but I’ll admit that something about it makes moving out to the burbs looks like a better lifestyle to me. Compare that to SEFC where it feels like a elite gated-community of quiet conformity. Even worse is the video on the River Green site (http://www.rivergreen.com). It goes into depth to explain where Richmond is located — obviously it’s not even intended for local buyers. So, everytime I hear a developer extol increased height and density as a means of sustainability, I get skeptical. Rarely is the density aimed at alleviating local commutes and affordable housing.

• 28 gasp // Jun 30, 2010 at 7:18 pm

  Bill:

  Re: Getting money from developers for planning.

  For the last 5 years or so, the City Planning Department has been using something called a “Cost Recovery Policy” to accept “contributions” from developers who want to have them conduct a “Policy Planning Program” resulting in a “Policy Statement”, which is then used as the basis for the rezoning of their property.

  The planners and developers like this process (I believe Concord Pacific paid for the NEFC plan) because they can use the policy statement to override and overcome any objections raised by the local communities during the rezoning process by claiming that all the (contentious) issues (such as density) have already been decided.

• 29 gasp // Jun 30, 2010 at 10:03 pm

  When Scammin’ Sam proposed his EcoDensity plan, residents throughout Vancouver were rightly opp0sed to this sham because they knew it had nothing to do with the environment. Instead it meant their neighbourhoods were soon going to be destroyed by voracious developers. They knew it meant the beginning of the end for Vancouver’s livability since it would result in the imposition of highrises and towers and other shadow-producing, inappropriate developments throughout the City of Vancouver, without regard for the people or businesses in established neighbourhoods.

  But then Mike Harcourt (Vision supporter) and Michael Geller (NPA supporter) went to the media and convinced, inter alia, the Vancouver Sun’s editorial board and reporters that the opponents to EcoDensity were just a bunch of rabble-rousers and scaremongers. They claimed EcoDensity was about “gentle” densification; it didn’t mean towers in established neighbourhoods – just townhouses and low-rise buildings.

  So, since EcoDensity was implemented what has happened? Rezoning was approved for a 22 storey tower on West Broadway (700 block) shading residents of Fairview, a proposed 22 storey tower at Nanaimo and Kingsway, proposed towers for the West End, the “Gateway” proposal (36 stories) at the foot of Cambie, and now the 10, 14 , 24 storey proposal for 70th and Granville. And these are just the ones the public is aware of.

  None of these developments are being proposed as a means to protect or improve the environment; instead, the developers are looking to realize a huge economic benefit at the expense of the existing residents and businesses.

  This is the real meaning of EcoDensity – density solely for the economic benefit of the developers – at the expense of existing residents and businesses.

  Since the proof is in the pudding, then both Mike Harcourt and Michael Geller were either mistaken or they deliberately misled the public about EcoDensity. And since neither the NPA nor Vision councillors called them on their “mistaken” views on EcoDensity, we can only assume that the real reason the councillors kept silent is because they wanted the public to be fooled about the true intentions behind their EcoDensity sham – which is to give the developers all they can.

  So while the City councillors hide their true intentions by claiming they care about this City, its neighbourhoods and its people, let’s not forget that they were all complicit in imposing this EcoDensity sham on Vancouver.

• 30 Bill McCreery // Jun 30, 2010 at 11:23 pm

  @Joanne, well said, thoughtful. You have many insightful observations & I wish there was an easier forum to exchange ideas.

  I will limit comment on your concern about the badly handled consultation process, etc. This is yet another example of the deeply flawed current planning process being administered in Vancouver. The City [Council / Planning, who knows?] has allowed the Gateway proposal to proceed without the “Major Projects planning process” consultation with the neighbourhood; has allowed this application to proceed in the middle of the Cambie Corridor planning study & before it is completed; have not done their own independent assessments of how much added new density / development a given Canada Line station can handle, in this case Marine Drive; given the already congested ‘T’ Cambie & Marine intersection I doubt they’ve even looked @ the vehicular capabilities, given the huge density of this proposal. The architectural drawings available are incomplete & do not show the building in it’s existing or even it possible, future context [if they did the massive scale would scare you even more than you now are].

  Will any other property owner be able to have something of an even chance of realizing their up-zoning ‘LIFTs’ after Gateway sucks up the local retail, residential demand?

  This process is not only not good for the Marpole community, it is not good for other property owners, other developers, the economic stability of the neighbourhood, house prices & rents.

• 31 Living in the West End // Jul 1, 2010 at 5:56 am

  Middle aged, married and you own – the Mayor does not want you. By the way the Report of Findings for the two Public Meetings must be on someones desk.

  http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/westend/index.htm

  Motion B.4 next Tuesday following the long weekend

  MOTION ON NOTICE
  4. Mayor’s West End Community Advisory Committee
  MOVER: Mayor Gregor Robertson
  SECONDER: Councillor Andrea Reimer
  WHEREAS on April 8, 2010 Council adopted a recommendation to
  “implement an innovative approach to engage the West End community in an
  open discussion on issues of community needs including affordable housing”;
  AND WHEREAS two public meetings were arranged by the City Manager in
  consultation with the Managing Director of the Social Development
  Department and the Director of Planning, subsequent to this
  recommendation being adopted;
  AND WHEREAS at the two public meetings held with the West End
  community it was indicated that the community would strongly support
  an interim measure to a planning process being initiated in the area,
  that allows the community to solicit community feedback on priorities
  and express community priorities to the City and developers;
  AND WHEREAS the West End is one of six communities in the City that is
  in line for a community planning process and the current budget
  challenges indicate these six planning processes may take many years to
  be completed;
  AND WHEREAS these circumstances provide an opportunity to pilot an
  innovative engagement approach that can be evaluated as a potential
  interim measure for all communities waiting for official planning
  processes to be initiated;
  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council establish a Mayor’s
  West End Community Advisory Committee as a Type D committee
  to provide advice to the Mayor and with the terms of reference as
  set out in Appendix A to the Motion entitled “Mayor’s West End
  Community Advisory Committee”.
  * * * * *
  DRAFT Mayor’s West End Community Advisory Committee
  Timeline Start September 2010. End when a West End planning process is
  formally initiated by the City of Vancouver’s Planning Department.
  Composition The Mayor’s West End Community Advisory Committee will be
  composed of the Chair of Planning and Environment Committee,
  Councillor Tim Stevenson, Mayor Gregor Robertson and twelve (12)
  individuals who reflect the demographics of the West End including:
  • Single resident households, 40 years of age and under
  • Families of young children
  • New immigrants and refugees
  • Seniors
  • Local business owners who live in the neighbourhood
  • LGBTQ community
  In addition, the community’s high number of renters (more than 80%
  of residents identified themselves as renters at the last census) will
  be taken into account in considering nominations.
  Co-Chairs The initial Co-Chairs of the Mayor’s West End Community Advisory
  Committee are the Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee
  and Councillor Stevenson. When the committee is constituted,
  Councillor Stevenson will step down as a co-chair and the 12
  community members shall select a community member to be one of
  the co-chairs.
  Appointment
  Process
  The co-chairs will appoint the remaining twelve (12) members using
  an open call nomination process, similar to that used for Type B
  advisory committees.
  Mandate The Mayor’s West End Community Advisory Committee is an interim
  measure to a formal planning process being undertaken. The
  Committee is responsible for communicating community priorities to
  the City in its planning and policy development and for helping to
  communicate City policy initiatives that may be of interest to
  residents in the West End.
  Activities The Mayor’s West End Community Advisory Committee will be
  responsible for the following activities interim to a formal planning
  process be undertaken for the West End:
  1. Developing and maintaining a list of community priorities for
  the West End.
  2. Meeting with developers proposing re-zonings in the West End
  prior to community open houses to ensure these proposals are
  informed by current community priorities
  3. Providing advice to the Mayor’s Office on further initiatives to
  increase linkages between the West End and City in relation
  to development and policy.

• 32 michael geller // Jul 1, 2010 at 7:41 am

  First of all Happy Canada Day!

  There’s a wonderful scene in Woody Allen’s Annie Hall when Allen’s character, standing in a cinema queue with Annie and listening to someone behind him expound on Marshall McLuhan’s work, leaves the line to speak to the camera directly. The man then speaks to the camera in his defence, and Allen resolves the dispute by pulling McLuhan himself from behind a free-standing movie posterboard to tell the man that his interpretation is wrong.

  GASP’s statement in comment 29 above …”Since the proof is in the pudding, then both Mike Harcourt and Michael Geller were either mistaken or they deliberately misled the public about EcoDensity” has prompted me to respond, like McCluhan in Annie Hall.

  Before reading what I have to say, I would suggest that everyone spend a moment and read the latest EcoDensity Brochure http://www.vancouver-ecodensity.ca/webupload/File/EcoDensity%20Summary%20Report%20_web%281%29.pdf which includes newspaper clippings following the visit that Harcourt, myself and others made to the Vancouver Sun.

  I agree with GASP that the various tower proposals he describes are not what Harcourt and I were advocating. However, I do stand by the propositions that are set out in the EcoDensity brochure which advocate for higher density buildings along transit corridors and at important intersections, laneway housing, and the replacement of single family housing in certain areas with small lot singles, townhouses, duplexes, quadraplexes, and low rise apartments.

  On page 14 of the EcoDensity report, you will see a clipping of the article I wrote for the Sun…We’re getting the Eco-but what is density” in which I noted density doesn’t have to mean taller buildings. I stand by this as well.

  I am as perplexed as many others on this blog by some of the new high rise proposals away from the downtown. This is not what I have been advocating. I agree there will be opportunities for some mid-rise buildings along the Cambie Corridor, and there may be some special locations for a concentration of appropriately designed higher buildings (eg 41st and Cambie and perhaps the Marine/Cambie intersection), but I am not in favour of continuous mid-rise buildings along Cambie.

  What I would like to see is a stop to the construction of new single family houses on streets like Oak , West 41st and West 49th…this, to my mind, is a mistake. But under the current zoning and planning framework, the builders really have no choice.

  So yes GASP, what I was supporting is not what is happening. In fact, since I appeared at the ‘unveiling’ of EcoDensity, there have been very few new townhouses built in the city. We have got laneway housing, and it’s something, but that’s not what is really needed. We need more gentle densification of many neighbourhoods, now with towers, but with other more suitable forms.

  Finally, it is evident that there is a need for a comprehensive plan for the revitalization of Marpole, Unfortunately, staff claim not to have the resources to undertake such a planning study. But I too would question the appropriateness of a 24 storey building on the Safeway site, especially in the absence of such a plan.

• 33 Kirk // Jul 1, 2010 at 10:12 am

  Perhaps, the 24 storey tower will become the Vancouver Special of the future. I say that because I believe there’s also a proposal from Rize developments to put a 24 storey tower at Kingsway and 10th. The minutes aren’t available yet. But, they should show up here soon:
  http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/udp/2010/Minutes/Jun16.html#3

  @Living in the West End,
  One thing about that West End Community Advisory Committee, it doesn’t include families with older kids. That might sound like a strange comment, but I have a lot of friends with toddlers living in and around downtown. I’ve got two of my own. But, as the kids are get older, I’m losing friends to the suburbs. Their kids will probably grow up with the mentality of living in the burbs, driving everywhere. And, so, the cycle repeats itself.

  If the 24 storey tower included affordable 3-bdrm units, I’d support it. But, most units are typically 1 bdrm or very small 2 bdrm. Only the penthouses are big enough for kids in the 10-16 year old range.

• 34 Bill Lee // Jul 1, 2010 at 12:23 pm

  @Jo-Anne // Jun 30, 2010 at 3:42 pm comment 24.

  Not only shadows, (and consider the cooling in the shadows, and the freezing in winter without a sun melting the surface, or black ice in the shadows in winter) but also the reflections from the everpresent but ill-thought-out glazing of all those windows.

  We don’t have the right to sunlight for our solar-powered heaters and thingamajigs yet, but it will come.

  As for reflections, I was painting my north-facing door last week with the same bright yellow colour gloss acrylic.
  Why? Well a new 12 story tower north of me, on a hill three blocks north reflects a bright sun on me for several hours from it’s banks of windows, bleaching the door, weakening and ‘rotting’ the curtain fabrics in the front windows and so on.

  The contrast in colours (a new bright orange yellow on top of what was the same colour but now almost white) was stark, and you can see where old parts didn’t face the reflective windows to the north or were at the back, what the original colour was. A stroke on the original colour was much the same, but on the bleached door was much stronger.

  Towers also have wind consequences as well, pushing 2/3 of the wind that hits them down in to the streets.

• 35 Bill McCreery // Jul 1, 2010 at 1:39 pm

  @Michael, I suspect many agree with you. I have spoken to several neighbourhood concerned citizens from different communities throughout the City. Without exception they are prepared to accept additional density. The problem is the City is not properly engaging these people in a constructive, meaningful dialogue. Until they do these Mexican standoffs will & should continue.

  ‘Gentle’ & intelligent densification can in fact make neighbourhoods better places to live, safer, more sustainable, more diverse culturally as well as with retail services & just plain nicer places to live,work, play, go to school, etc. Brut forced ad hoc, opportunistic, out of scale, high density, alien insertions by & large do the opposite.

  Another missing ingredient in the current defective planning process is the generation of factual information to, among other things, help bring the 2 sides together. Per my comments above, the City has no idea what added density a given Canada Line station can handle because they, & based on what Translink has had to say so far, neither do they. In addition, if neighbourhoods want a community based ‘high street’ they must understand that retailers, to be successful, need a ‘catchment’ population to patronize them. This has recently been determined by how many cars drive by a given location. This yardstick must be changed for ‘sustainable’ neighbourhoods to work. Has the City provided the neighbourhood representatives with this kind of factual information? Not that I know of [please correct me if appropriate].

  When the 2 principle ‘stakeholders’ are provided with such factual information it is possible to get common understanding which permits concensus.

  I understand both ‘stakeholders’ read this blog. With the quite wonderful perspectives well expressed here & in other related ones, a good bit of what is needed to start this process has been provided. What is missing is the political / staff will to get a positive, constructive, creative decision making planning process started.

• 36 gmgw // Jul 2, 2010 at 1:33 am

  Comparing Michael Geller’s Uriah Heep-like post-mortem defense of his and Harcourt’s shameless [edited] for the development industry– oh, gosh, sorry, Michael, I meant to say “eloquent argument for the EcoDensity concept”– (or, “gosh, we wuz misinterpreted…!”) with what we now see was waiting in the wings all along, reminds me of nothing so much as the old joke about the desperately horny teenager in the back seat with his reluctant girlfriend, pleading: “Don’t worry, babe, I’ll only put it in a *little* way–!”

  Remember the old adage about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? With the help of Geller and his ilk, we are about to see that proved true as never before.
  gmgw

• 37 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 2, 2010 at 11:31 am

  “another neighbourhood group [this time in Marpole]… gathers steam to oppose development in their neighbourhood”

  Frances, I think that the group is not really “against” development. Resistance is for the methods used, and the type of development proposed. I suspect that the development the neighbours would not oppose would be incremental, fee-simple, and human-scaled.

  The municipal process is going from bad to worse. What awaits on the other side of the complete disregard for “values of place”? This erosion of our social fabric, local economies, and neighbourhood environments is unacceptable. As the posts here clearly demonstrate, we’re not fools.

  “This was, of course, provoked by the plans for the big Marine Gateway project in their neighbourhood…”

  That one must go. And, the plan for the intensification of Cambie has to be redrawn from the grass roots up. Congratulations on forming MARA.

  “Alliance members contributed more personal funds and we put up a series of presentation materials on boards”

  Send a bill to the planning department and copy Mayor and Council on it.

  At the MARA meeting, “We were very clear in stating that the next step should be workshops right in our community, not at Oakridge or another location, but right in our own neighbourhood.”

  Yes. And you should not just have city planners on the drawing board, but independent urban design specialists that are teaching as well as drawing. The DoP really has not shown any capacity in urbanism. Nor did the local design firms that drew up the SEFC plan. The designers and their methodology have to be good enough to break the silos and get the engineers, and others, on board. You will not just be designing new architecture for your neighbourhood, you need to redesign the public rights of way as well.

  Growth must be the engine of change. The quality of the resulting urban space, in other words the quality of the streets, has to be much, much more supportive of social uses. And it is hard to see how we are going to achieve that without planning the transportation network at the same time.

  Note that the footprint under consideration is well understood. It is none other than “the City’s 2 block radius notification area.” That is more or less the boundary of one “quartier”.

  However, it should not be centred on the development site. What must be under review is an intensification plan for the Marpole Quartiers, focusing on the community as a whole, each quartier centred, using universal principles of urbanism, to establish the long suffering focus areas or “hearts” in this venerable neighbourhood.

  “towards Granville Street, as a few days ago a new Rezoning Application went up there to tear down the old Safeway and put up 24, 14 and 9 story towers.”

  What the 5 Councillors present may not yet understand is that before this kind of change can take place, the area as a whole should draw an Urban Design Plan that establishes target densities for the next 10 and 30 years of growth, complete with an analysis of the NEW building types needed to reach those targets, the revitalization of local streets, and the implementation of on-street transit.

  During that process, you will be happily surprised to find out that towers are not necessary; and further, that towers deliver neither the best quality units, nor the best quality in the resulting urban space. Neighbourhoods will get more bang-for-the-local-buck if the towers are laid on their side. That way the redevelopment will impact more linear feet of street, lane, and sidewalk. The “land lift” fees can be collected on a parcel-by-parcel basis instead, and moneys for Marpole urban design can come from a Municipal Bond issue. The City can borrow against future growth Marpole rather than get into back room deals with mega-developers. The revenues from growth paid to the city, the new tax increment, will be the same regardless of whether we build high-rise or human-scale density. Property tax is calculated on the basis of built-foot, not number of stories above that ground.

  A pig is being taken to market in our city. It is not the individual development parcels that are being sold off to generate profits, but rather the social space of our neighbourhoods is being given away.

  gmgw

  Even if you live over by Oak, as I did, you walked to south Granville for an experience of neighbourhood place. The kind of blocks, and lanes one crosses along the way still ensure a vital and satisfying trek. Urban design plans need to support and enhance that kind of neighbourhood movement, and neighbourhood experience.

  “I was at the Cambie Corridor planning workshop last weekend and people railed and bemoaned anything higher than a townhouse right next to King Ed station, no density on King Ed. Only on Cambie, and only low density.”

  —kermit

  3.5-storey buildings with no side yards are “high density”, kermit. “Low” townhouses can deliver equivalent amounts of density if we measure density on a quartier or neighbourhood-wide basis, rather than one site at a time. However, the new towns at the NW corner of Cambie and 29th(??) are a storey too short, and probably not fee-simple. There is a regulation in the City Charter that must be changed.

  Notwithstanding, it is a mistake to confuse “high density” with “high rise”. As we have heard from Jo-Ann, high-rise gets you density and long shadows. Human-scale, high-density gets you good neighbourhoods and safe streets. Human-scale density gets you walkable streets and safe neighbourhoods. So, the questions arisee: Why aren’t we looking at that? How come towers and slabs are the default position at City Hall? What gives?

  Sparktikus

  Urbanismo has it right yet again. We can double the population of Vancouver by building 3.5 storey, fee-simple, human-scale, high-density fronting the arterials where today we have single family residential chocking on six lanes of traffic. Independently, Patrick Condon is getting the same results. We presented same for FormShift.

  What would it look like? Like crap, unless we also re-design the streets and put TrolleyRT or LRT on the arterials. Part of the problem is a municipality mis-firing on multiple levels at the same time.

  “I would prefer to see development, including Marpole become identifiable, walking neighbourhoods, “quartiers, and if that includes sensitively integrated 24 stories as part of the mix . . . no prob.”

  —Urbanismo

  Urbie needs to do a little “disclosure” of his own, regarding what kind of tower he lives in… I beg off at the thought that a quartier needs a 24 story tower. Bloomsbury has one tower in it—about half the height of Urbanismo’s 24-stories—and it is hands down the worst building in the place. Let’s put towers downtown, and do human-scale urbanism in the neighbourhoods. 24-storey towers in the quartier towers would overlook neighbours driving down the value of their homes, concentrate traffic loads, snarl the quartier, and shadow it to boot.

  Tiktaalik

  No one is an amateur at neighbourhood building. We all live in one, most of us walk and socialize in one, so we carry with us a fair idea of what is possible. The problem is that the towers belong to a different scale of development company, they require large construction companies to build them, and financing is more than likely off-shore rather than next door. The human-scale urbanism is also more likely to spur a local job market. So, there is plenty of reasons why—when you’re out counting windows—to stop at 3.5.

  “All of these sagas repeating over & over throughout the City reveal clearly there is a huge deficiency in the the entire planning process as it is currently being administered. Is this a result of undue political interference? Is it due to the lack of the capabilities of of planning staff? Or, a combination?”

  —Bill McCreery

  The problem with what some have called “The Vancouver Achievement” is that re-zoning one site at a time causes:

  (1) Negotiations held behind closed doors, thus there is no transparency.

  (2) The neighbourhood is not being planned as a whole, but rather piece-meal.

  Drawing an intensification plan, or what I call an Urban Design Plan, for entire neighbourhoods or quartiers would level the playing field, and secure a higher quality in the resulting public space—the social place of the urban city.

  “No Rezoning Without a Comprehensive Plan”

  —Living in the West End

  The WE petition gets it right. It is reassuring to hear the neighbourhoods on the other side of Burrard standing up for their superb urbanism.

  “… we are taking about 370 feet in finished height; this tower is also 250 wide. It will cast enormous shadows that move around to different areas throughout the day. To put it into perspective, at certain times of the day, this tower will cast a shadow over a neighbourhood elementary school that shares ground with a park. That school and park are 1 1/2 blocks west of the proposed tower and equivalent to 5 blocks north. This tower will shadow that entire distance. It is a huge tower. This is only one Rezoning Application, but others are sitting in the wings; in the not too distant future 3 corners of Marine and Cambie will be dressed with towers.”

  —Jo-Ann

  Jo-Ann gets the shadow problem crystal clear. We can live with shadow canyons downtown. We really have no choice. But not in the neighbourhoods. However, it would appear it’s going to take a battle to get City Hall to listen.

  “The project info sheets on-line should have, in addition to project data, the financials as well [RZ, DP, BP fees paid, LIFT paid/to be paid, STIR & other concessions from City to developer, etc.] so voters are truly informed… when they do manage to get LIFT payments, where does that money go? General revenue? Mayor’s slush fund? Bike lanes? Chicken coups?”

  —Bill McCreery

  Bill is getting to “transparency”. However, note that if the building types were pre-approved at the Urban Design Plan stage, then all the fees and contributions would be mapped out in advance, according to building type. The Urban Design Plans (UDP) zone by building type, so UDPs also set the expectation of the total contributions by footprint and quartier. Most importantly, the UDP provide for densification in an open, consultative and transparent manner. They set a level playing field and dampen the markets tendency to froth over into exuberant speculation.

  “SEFC… I think it’s even more high-end than Coal Harbour… it feels like a elite gated-community of quiet conformity.”

  —Kirk

  I just drove through the OV the other day with the top down. I don’t think the sun will ever shine on the street named after Walter Hardwick.

  “For the last 5 years or so, the City Planning Department has been using something called a “Cost Recovery Policy” to accept “contributions” from developers who want to have them conduct a “Policy Planning Program” resulting in a “Policy Statement”, which is then used as the basis for the rezoning of their property.”

  —gasp

  If we re-write this as the sheep and the wolves, you get a clear idea of the dimensions of the problem. Of course, we have to add that the developers contribute to the election of the Council members, who then preside over processes that directly affect profits of the ones making the campaign contributions.

  The whole thing leaves a bad impression even as it is careening towards a result we will all have reasons to regret.

  “… [EcoDensity] meant the beginning of the end for Vancouver’s livability since it would result in the imposition of highrises and towers and other shadow-producing, inappropriate developments throughout the City of Vancouver, without regard for the people or businesses…”

  —gasp

  It is a sad commentary on our current situation that this hyper-urbanization of our cherished places is being flung down upon us in the name of “sustainability” and everything green. What we are clamouring for is something timeless and very profitable… “good” urbanism.

  “The City [Council / Planning, who knows?] has allowed the Gateway proposal to proceed without the “Major Projects planning process” consultation with the neighbourhood; has allowed this application to proceed in the middle of the Cambie Corridor planning study & before it is completed; have not done their own independent assessments of how much added new density / development a given Canada Line station can handle, in this case Marine Drive; given the already congested ‘T’ Cambie & Marine intersection I doubt they’ve even looked @ the vehicular capabilities, given the huge density of this proposal. The architectural drawings available are incomplete & do not show the building in it’s existing or even it possible, future context [if they did the massive scale would scare you even more than you now are].”

  —Bill McCreery

  What Bill is enumerating for us are the pieces that come together when you design at the scale of the neighbourhood or quartier as a whole—i.e. the urban design plan. One parcel at a time cannot get the job done. Furthermore, leaving the “public good” in the hands of the private sector is tantamount to an abdication of the overseer role that we have given local government in the Canadian constitution.

  “…. [from the Council motion]…. AND WHEREAS the West End is one of six communities in the City that is in line for a community planning process and the current budget challenges indicate these six planning processes may take many years to be completed…”

  —Living in the West End

  The points here are:

  (1) There is a lack of capacity in urban design in city staff. If the capacity is there, then it is being held well in check. We will need help from outside.

  (2) Evidence of this is the perception that an UDP process in six neighbourhoods would take “years to be completed”. We could have a first draft following fully vetted consultation in less than 12 months in all six places if urbanist methods and methodology were in use.

  “I agree with GASP that the various tower proposals he describes are not what Harcourt and I were advocating. However, I do stand by the propositions that are set out in the EcoDensity brochure which advocate for higher density buildings along transit corridors and at important intersections, laneway housing, and the replacement of single family housing in certain areas with small lot singles, townhouses, duplexes, quadraplexes, and low rise apartments….

  …. what I was supporting is not what is happening. In fact, since I appeared at the ‘unveiling’ of EcoDensity, there have been very few new townhouses built in the city. We have got laneway housing, and it’s something, but that’s not what is really needed. We need more gentle densification of many neighbourhoods, now with towers, but with other more suitable forms.

  … it is evident that there is a need for a comprehensive plan for the revitalization of Marpole, Unfortunately, staff claim not to have the resources to undertake such a planning study. But I too would question the appropriateness of a 24 storey building on the Safeway site, especially in the absence of such a plan.”

  —Michael Geller

  The Devil—not McCluhan—is in the details, Michael. What do we mean by “low rise apartments”, “mid-rise building”, and “concentration[s] of appropriately designed higher buildings”? Is this not just more “speak” for the “thin end of the wedge?”

  While a high level of convergence is apparent, Michael and I are discovering that we lack common ground around certain fundamentals in urbanism. In the quartiers, I would prescribe the height of the built form in proportion to the width of the fronting right of way. That way, when the Devil comes, neighbourhood folks can just take out their measuring sticks and beat him back. More importantly, certainty levels the playing field and guarantees the future quality of the neighbourhood’s social spaces.

  How to fund the process we have dealt with earlier. It is sometimes called “Tax Increment Financing”. Essentially, the City borrows against the future revenues from growth in order to put in place the plan, and whatever amenities are necessary to get the ball rolling. Given the Canada Line is already in place, the ball is rolling already.

  From a previous post, Michael, I don’t understand why developers need 30% profit in land-lift projects. That seems excessive.

  “If the 24 storey tower included affordable 3-bdrm units, I’d support it.”

  —Kirk

  The way to get affordable rentals is to put revenue suites (basements and attics) in the towns that Michael and I are not seeing built.

  “Not only shadows… but also the reflections from the everpresent but ill-thought-out glazing of all those windows… Towers also have wind consequences as well, pushing 2/3 of the wind that hits them down in to the streets.”

  —Bill Lee

  Frances, thank you for hosting a never-before-seen neighbourhood discussion.

• 38 michael geller // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:32 pm

  “Michael, I don’t understand why developers need 30% profit in land-lift projects. That seems excessive.”

  Lewis, I have never suggested that developers need 30% profit. What I have said is that the city should not be leaving it up to developers to initiate rezonings, and then seek 70% of the lift. This approach is not in anyone’s interest. The city should create neighbourhood plans, with input from the neighbours and contributors to this blog, and pre-zone the land.

  As part of the planning process, the city should predetermine what Development Cost Levies and Community Amenity Contributions are required to fund new neighbourhood amenities, and announce the costs, so everybody knows what to expect. And don’t do this on a site by site basis. Do it on a more comprehensive basis, since this will also have the effect of putting a downward pressure on land values.

  That’s what I am arguing for. The current ‘let’s make a deal’ system does not work, and it is only going to get worse as we plan the Cambie Corridor and other areas for higher densities.

  I hope this clarifies my position.

  And as for building form, I believe there is a place for towers, and mid-rises, and low rises and townhouses. While I’m an ardent advocate of fee simple higher density row housing, I do not believe it is the only thing we should be building.

  In some cases, mid-rise may be appropriate. But I agree entirely with the criticism of those portions of the Olympic Village where the sun doesn’t shine. I have already expressed the identical concern to the DofP and others.

  I also think there is a place for high rise buildings away from the downtown. The Oakridge Shopping Centre is one such opportunity. Similarly, I think Kerrisdale demonstrates that 11 and 12 storey buildings can co-exist with low-rise buildings on leafy streets quite successfully. I also believe there are many other places where high rise buildings would be appropriate. Many of us want sun and views and will forgo a front door at the street for a better view and sunlight. And with proper planning, we can create zones where such buildings will fit in.

  And yes, the design details are important. If you want a good example, check out the Carrington townhouse development around 46 and Oak, and the one at 43 and Oak…..they are both about the same form and density. One is quite successful, and one is…..well let’s say less successful. Unfortunately, it’s sometime harder to regulate good design than form. Especially when the developer is not that caring, and the architect is not that talented. But that’s another story.

• 39 Bill Smolick // Jul 2, 2010 at 3:36 pm

  @gmgw rambled “God, I wish I could get the hell out of this blighted city once and for all rather than having to watch its ongoing destruction.”

  You’re not the only one! I wish you could get out too!

  Thank you…thank you…I’ll be doing a second show at 9 pn the second stage.

• 40 Urbanismo // Jul 2, 2010 at 5:09 pm

  @ Lewis, “Urbie needs to do a little “disclosure” of his own, regarding what kind of tower he lives in . . . ”

  I live on the 10th floor of an old (1962) 17 storey tower: one of three randomly sited throughout downtown Nanaimo. I have a magnificent 270º view: Gabriola bluffs to Mount Benson.

  So what . . . my circumstance is not at issue!

  I become quite antsy when the discourse turns into an “all-or-nothing winner take all bun fight.

  We agree Lewis to design by “quartiers” i.e. intrinsically urban design.

  Urban design is inclusive: fee-simple, strata, high-rise, low-rise but most important, sensitive diversity must augment and define public, ambulatory, urban place.

  Both of us share a problem, however. And that is, no one pays attention to our ideas.

  Councillors and planners have been weaned in the authoritarian mould: they are deathly afraid of ideas . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzEY6ZqkuE&feature=fvw . . . and that is a great pity.

• 41 The Fourth Horseman // Jul 2, 2010 at 7:13 pm

  Urb,

  Thanks for the great Harry Nilsson memory.

  Why, it seems like just yesterday when Harry, partying with John Lennon and May Pang during John’s “long, long lost weekend” ended up face down, in a pile of his own vomit. Good times!

  And speaking about feeling unwell, another selection from Nilsson’s vast oeuvre, as sung by elected representatives, everywhere. A real panacea, for whatever political ills, ail ya!

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbgv8PkO9eo&feature=related

  Enjoy!

• 42 gasp // Jul 3, 2010 at 2:17 pm

  An article entitled “New way to achieve land-uses verdicts needed” by Bob Ransford on page F4 of The Vancouver Sun – Saturday, July 3, 2010, is an excellent example of why Vancouver City Councillors and their planning department staff feel justified in ignoring the views of people who oppose developments in their communities:

  - the people are all NIMBYS
  - complaints about height and building form are just complaints about density
  - Community Visions are too vaguely worded to be meaningful
  - older Community Visions are no longer relevant because they were written before EcoDensity [puts a lie to Toderian's statement when EcoDensity was proposed that Community Visions would be respected]
  - density anywhere and of any kind = sustainability
  - there is an urgent need to change the way our City is designed and built
  - public consultation is out of hand (the public hinders “progress”) because the people always object to new developments
  - immediate neighbours are an obvious special interest group (so their views are meaningless) [but apparently the developer does not have a special interest]

  With views like those expressed by Bob Ransford in the Vancouver Sun, is there any wonder why the public’s voice gets ignored by this City – especially, by its Councillors and planners?

• 43 Bill McCreery // Jul 3, 2010 at 4:14 pm

  Boy oh Boy, lot’s of thoughts. One which comes up often is density vs. height. A bit of history for those who are not as familiar with what has happened over the years.

  In the 70s TEAM & Ray Spaxman did a re-evaluation of the entire development process. @ the end we decided to down-zone areas like the WE, CBD, Downtown South, Kits, etc & created a conditional use zoning [not spot re-zoning]. CBD went from +/-12 FSR to 9, WE +/-3 & 4.5 [from memory] to 1.5 to 2.2, Downtown South became 5. Setbacks, etc were relaxed to allow flexibility in siting, massing, footprint, etc.

  We decided to try horizontal [eg: Anchor Point - Burrard & Pacific, the project just west of Burrard on Pacific] simple tower [eg: WE] density. Found that they blocked a lot of views & marketplace liked height & more views. Tower & podium was developed as a compromise [defined street, originally 2 storeys, now more 3 to 5 - much better street, eyes on street, allowed for views].

  Also, reduced parking typically to 75%, found it didn’t work, went back to +/-1/unit which was less than originally.

  There is a lot of lessons which can be learned from this history. Further refinement & adjustment is now opportune. And, introducing higher density into single family neighbourhoods needs a whole lot more thought & refinement.

  These are exciting opportunities indeed.

• 44 Dicky Boy // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:01 pm

  I say change’ all ‘of Marplole to a Six to Eight Story Zone accross the board.

• 45 Dicky Boy // Jul 3, 2010 at 8:06 pm

  Dont forget Vancouver is a World Class City expansion is inevitable.. if it does not suit somes want’s.. Move. This is what Big City Life Is About.

• 46 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 3, 2010 at 10:02 pm

  Greatest Hits, huh?
  

• 47 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 3, 2010 at 11:34 pm

  There is a remarkable level of convergence here, and we should underscore that first, because in the final analysis that is the win-win for Vancouver’s future…

  “The city should create neighbourhood plans, with input from the neighbours and … Consult, pre-zone land, determine DCLs in advance, so everybody knows what to expect, put a downward pressure on speculation…”

  —Michael Geller

  “…introducing higher density into single family neighbourhoods needs a whole lot more thought & refinement…. These are exciting opportunities indeed.”

  —Bill McCreery

  Still, there is room to debate perceptions not based on fact. The following points, however, are secondary to the convergence of views just illustrated…

  “I also believe there are many other places where high rise buildings would be appropriate. Many of us want sun and views and will forgo a front door at the street for a better view and sunlight. And with proper planning, we can create zones where such buildings will fit in.”

  —Michael Geller

  Of course, I do not believe there are “other places where high rise buildings would be appropriate”. I feel that we will do our downtown great service by making it the sole precinct of hyper urbanism. The competition thus created will chase out the lame ducks.

  Since Michael, Bill and I are all trained architects, the point to begin with is conceptual: “Many of us want sun and views and will forgo a front door at the street for a better view and sunlight”.

  I think we can all agree that this vision is tinged by the presumption of privilege. Michael’s “better view and sunlight” in a tower is bought at the expense of the nearby shadowed lots. Private property belonging to “others” that will be devalued for ever, since the possibility of view and sunlight is negated by Michael’s tower (its the same problem in Urbie’s neighbourhood—one tower blights a whole bunch of neighbouring properties that the tower development neither owns, nor compensates for the loss).

  I believe this fact alone negates the “towers outside the downtown” argument—and I can’t wait to see the first case brought to Canadian courts arguing just this point.

  However, I feel that such a case would not be won downtown. It is O.K. to have blocked views and no sun downtown, because that is what “downtown” means in a North American context. Every Paris shall have its La Defense. However, we will be ahead if we limit the footprint of these places, thereby maximizing the presure to build quality projects.

  In order to fully understand the high rise issue we must take notice of the market’s predilection for “views”…

  “We decided to try horizontal (Anchor Point – Burrard & Pacific) simple tower [West End] density. Found that they blocked a lot of views & marketplace liked height & more views. Tower & podium was developed as a compromise [defined street, originally 2 storeys, now more 3 to 5 - much better street, eyes on street, allowed for views].”

  —Bill McCreery

  The key words here—and Bill can elaborate if I am misconstruing his presentation—are that the “marketplace liked height & more views”. No surprise here. The competitive marketplace craves to carve out an advantage for itself, even if it comes at the cost of complete disregard for the property of others, or the property of all (i.e. the public realm).

  That’s why we have a regulated market place, in the first place.

  However, that is not to say that we should ignore market value. Views are valuable, they always have been, else the playground game would be known instead as “king of the bottom of the hill”.

  This is where “zoning by building type” comes in. Paris is the most beautiful city in the world, we have said, and all the buildings look more or less the same. Because the “maisonettes” are pretty much identical—maximizing the built envelope they have been given—the tops of the built form, and the views, follow the contours of the land.

  The parcels that have the view-advantage are also the parcels that hold the top of the hill. And, in some instances, the urban design plan has reserved those top-of-the-hill sites for special uses.

  Thus, the other way to exploit the market value of the view—i.e. the “non” tower way—is to impose a uniform build out. The views will then be had from the sought after terraces of those buildings that hold the high ground, or the street end vista. These would be the green roofs of sustainability.

  Bill mentions Anchor Point (six to—maybe as much as—12 storeys), which I analyzed in first year architecture. Anchor Point parades as the type “perimeter block massing”—the buildings are pushed to the edge of the sidewalk and the middle is kept green. However, there are important exceptions.

  nchor Point breaks the street-lane-street pattern of the Vancouver plat. Further, it represents the assembly of an entire city block, and turns its back on fee-simple land title. All of these “moves” play against the perimeter block type. Or to put it another way, Anchor Point gets the urbanism wrong.

  We can achieve equivalent densities, and a much higher quality in the resulting urban space, by an incremental or lot-by-lot intensification that avoids the premiums of land assembly. In this approach, the garden spaces would be private, and the lane spaces would be retained and reinvented. These statements do not apply to either Anchor Point, or any of the tower-and-podium schemes.

  Let’s just review: (i) get equivalent density; (ii) achieve a better result in the social space of the public realm; (iii) avoid the dread “hidden tax” of the condo fee; and (iv) save costs of land assembly. Really? So, how come we are trying every other possibility first, rather than focusing on the need to change one line or two in the Vancouver Charter that rules out exactly the kind of densification most neighbourhoods would accept?

  “Unfortunately, it’s sometime harder to regulate good design than form. Especially when the developer is not that caring, and the architect is not that talented. But that’s another story.”

  —Micheal Geller

  Or, its the same old story. We just don’t understand urban design in our town.

• 48 michael geller // Jul 4, 2010 at 6:50 am

  Lewis, while I, and no doubt others, appreciate the time and effort you put into your urban design commentaries on this site, I really do think you have become overly obsessed, let me repeat, OBSESSED, with one particular form of housing, namely a ‘carpet’ of low-rise fee simple ownership units.

  To suggest that we shouldn’t create more areas like West of Denman, or Kerrisdale, with their mix of low rise apartments, townhouses, mid-rise buildings and 11 storey ‘highrises’ is…frankly…absurd. Similarly, to only want to see low-rise buildings in the DTES is also unrealistic, and inappropriate.

  While I look forward to continuing this discussion with you off-line, I must say your approach to urban planning is starting to sound a bit like that of some diet ‘experts’ who advise that you should only eat one particular kind of food.

  Just as we all need well-balanced diets, a city needs well balanced densities, and yes….heights.

• 49 Bill McCreery // Jul 4, 2010 at 10:42 am

  Typo, sorry,

  @26, Bill McCreery // Jun 30, 2010 at 4:05 pm

  Further to above, Concessions on Maxines total +/-$5.45 for this single project.

  Ancient history but, should read $5.45M [million].

• 50 Bill McCreery // Jul 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm

  It is impossible to get everything in any architectural design or urban planning exercise. Compromise, selectivity & balance thus are better tools & goals. Eg: shadows – a tower casts a shadow, to big / high, wide [read Gateway] is to big, therefore, unacceptable. A 6 storey medium rise horizontal equivalent casts a shadow over all of an east west 66′ r.o.w. street for more than half the year during most of the day. That too is problematic.

  By “marketplace” I meant what buyers / renters want, not developers. Developers want to profit & they profit most when they supply demand. This is not a bad thing. It makes our system work balanced with inspired regulation.

  When I 1st arrived in Vancouver a U of Man classmate was living in the [not then] lovely, delightful heritage house @ 7th & a block east of Hemlock. I admired his panoramic view of downtown & the mountains. Ernst’s understated comment: “Nice wall paper”.

  That is a significant difference between Vancouver & say London & Paris. Although there are vista opportunities in the latter, they are very different than here. Also, not everyone wants their own terra ferma garden. @ times in my life I did & do but, I also own a 4th floor courtyard unit in Anchor Point III & when the fountain is working it is a wonderful, quiet urban sanctuary. So, different strokes for different folks.

  We do seem to agree there is to much reliance on the simplistic tower, not enough of a range of built form & density &, further, the planning process needs to go into the shop for a checkup real soon.

• 51 David Samis // Jul 4, 2010 at 2:05 pm

  I came across an article by Frances written a couple of years ago for the Sun about the EcoDensity consultation process. It is very interesting to see that all the issues now causing outrage in communities came up during the public consultation process:

  “EcoDensity raises fears of crowding without amenities

  Frances Bula, Vancouver Sun
  Published: Monday, February 11, 2008

  …

  As the city heads into the home stretch of public consultation on what will become an “EcoDensity Charter,” resident groups have banded together to express their concern that the policy — marketed as a way to make Vancouver a more environmentally sustainable city by promoting compact living and green building — may result in density just being shoved into their neighbourhoods.

  As well, they worry there isn’t enough emphasis on creating affordable housing or complete neighbourhoods with libraries, transit and community services to go with the density.

  Those are some of the points that a consortium of 23 neighbourhood groups has made in a formal letter to city council, in an effort to modify the final EcoDensity Charter, which is due to be voted on at the end of the month.

  “The concept isn’t bad, but we want a sustainable city, not just a dense one,” said Mel Lehan, a veteran Kitsilano resident activist, who speaks behalf of groups from Southlands to Commercial Drive and Dunbar to southeast Vancouver.

  Lehan said people feel the process is being rushed through and they fear that the new charter will mean that “we will have 40-storey towers that will be built in the middle of nowhere.”

  As well, they don’t like a postscript added by Coun. Suzanne Anton to consider taller buildings in the city’s heritage neighbourhoods of Chinatown, Gastown and the Downtown Eastside.”

  …

  There’s more, but I’ll stop there.

  I think Lehan’s quote hits to the heart of the debate: Density, on its own, does not automatically equate to sustainability, and in fact may detract from it in the case of large towers. Unfortunately, the fallacy of density=sustainability no matter what form it takes is being pushed by Toderian, developers, and successive councils.

  The City’s residents have repeatedly said what they want, and don’t want, the future of Vancouver to look like. The DofP, and two different councils, have totally ignored them. They have no-one to blame but themselves for the backlash we are now seeing.

  It begs the question: exactly whose interests are our elected representatives and public servants working on behalf of?

  Mr. Geller, you have written in the past that you don’t agree with more towers in the Historic Area, which comprises a good portion of the DTES (see also last line of the article quoted above). I would be very interested to hear why you have now flip-flopped on this?

  I hope that, come next election, prospective City councillors are clear which side of this debate they are on. Given the rising tide of dissatisfaction and activism being shown on this and other issues by neighbourhood groups, those who support more towers outside the core may be doing so at their own peril.

• 52 Bill Lee // Jul 4, 2010 at 2:25 pm

  RE: David Samis comment #49 above
  Link to the 2008 Fabula article
  http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=857415e1-1fb7-4bb4-a036-48a94d9c11f0&k=34848

  Another note about relative costs

  YOUR MONEYJuly 3, 2010 New York Times
  “High-Rise, or House With Yard?”
  By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/your-money/03compare.html
  An assessment meant to mirror a decision a family of four in the New York metropolitan area might face found that suburban living cost 18 percent more than urban living.

• 53 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 4, 2010 at 2:56 pm

  Michael, surely “obsession” belongs to the modernist fixation with the building as object.

  What the fee-simple, incremental, human-scaled intensification will deliver is a back ground building, a common cypher for the next wave in Canadian urbanization, complete with a set of values that is incomprehensible to modernist sensibility. The first step for getting the old urbanism in the rear view mirror is to shift the focus away from “building heights” toward more important stuff.

  Building type is but one of seven elements in urbanism as I would describe it. As far as the types go, I agree that there is need for more than one type. In FormShift we presented three different types. The type for zones with retail on the ground floor was strata title with structured parking. There we sought to satisfy the need for housing that is barrier free, elevator served, and with secured parking. While all of the three types would provide “view opportunities”, none of them would deliver the ills that Jo-Ann so well describes in post#24 above.

  Let’s stress this one point: most of the arguments for “mixing building types together” are of the “thin-end-of-the-wedge” variety. Their ultimate purpose seems to be to “add height”.

  “Good” urbanism the world over partakes of a paradox that requires a sophisticated understanding: it presents continuity of character, and diversity of form.

  The first is achieved by a standardized model or type, the second by the inventiveness used in its repetitive application. When the building unit is more or less the same, we must turn to the design of the place itself for inoculation against tedium—That’s urban design pure and simple.

  The benefits are many. Not just urbanism, but the building construction industry benefits from identifying single cyphers, or basic units of build out, and repeating them ad nauseum. We need go no further than the suburbs for an example as ubiquitous as it is adaptable. We are arguing against the tide when we suggest that an urbanism of a cypher or two is either untenable, or unprofitable.

  For examples of what has gone wrong in Vancouver’s neighbourhoods we can go to Kerrisdale, as well as the historic quartiers. The Boulevard, from 41st to 49th, is a prime urban site of the highest quality interpreted in the worst sort of way. The low rise condos fronting with double loaded corridors deliver inferior quality units, and streets bereft of social capital in what should be one of Vancouver’s most memorable great streets. Who wins?

  The DoP is about to repeat this same mistake along the proposed “new” boulevard blocks on Cambie.

  “Similarly, to only want to see low-rise buildings in the DTES is also unrealistic, and inappropriate.”

  —Michael Geller

  “A 6 storey medium rise horizontal equivalent casts a shadow over all of an east west 66′ r.o.w. street for more than half the year during most of the day. That too is problematic.”

  —Bill McCreery

  My prescription for the historic quartiers is not given in terms of height (i.e. high, or low), but rather in proportion to the width of the fronting right of way. I would have the buildings relate to the street at a ratio of 1 : 2.

  Following Bills analysis, on 66-foot R.O.W.s the streetwall would be 33 feet. On the 99-foot arterials, we could front with a building type 50-feet tall that I will describe below. The 130-foot-plus widths of the East and West Boulevard, and boulevard sections of Cambie, of course, beg for a much more nuanced understanding of the application of human scale in urban spaces.

  That may seem like a novel idea in the tower-no tower debate that merits repeating. After careful consideration, the only guarantee of quality in the resulting urban environment must result from fixing the building height to the width of the available public right of way.

  This is the correct interpretation of the urbanist tradition of our historic quartiers. To do otherwise is to violate the very values we seek to preserve.

  Another aspect of good urbanism missed by the modernist revolutionaries was the importance of preserving urban memory. The historic neighbourhoods in Vancouver—I have dubbed them ‘quartiers’ in recognition that modernist planning has failed to quantify a ‘neighbourhood unit’—present a complete urbanism. I would argue that this urbanism is the last well-wrought urbanism to be built on our shore.

  The high-density building types for its construction are on view on a walk down Water Street. On the north side, the type for the avenue or boulevard is represented by the 50-foot warehouse building. On the other side of the street, the 35-foot building for the residential streets is presented.

  By the 1880’s, urbanism in North America had undergone a radicalization that we would should reconsider today. In the Back Bay of Boston, in the post 1850 intensification of Greenwich Village, in the streetwall buildings of our historic quartiers, and in some of the apartment houses that were built with the advent of the elevator in the early decades of the next century, the residential building type doubled in depth. The 50-foot building became 100-feet deep. The consequences for ventilation and solar penetration were pushed to an extreme, and the character of the rear lane was given away for no good reason I can find.

  I believe the promise of our historic neighbourhoods will only be realized with an intensification plan carried out by extending into our era the same building types of our first wave of urbanism.

  Only by reaching such an undertaking we will have finally embraced the true meaning of a much used, but greatly misunderstood term: typology.

  Typology is the analysis of the type as it is re-interpreted in different eras. Whether it is the ‘basilica type’ of the Granville Island industrial shed, the ‘warehouse type’ of of the north side of Water Street, or the ‘house type’ of the hotel buildings on the south side (the Water Street Café being one of the most remarkable examples of the type), the challenge of typology is to take the products of the past and reinterpret them in the current era and economy without violating the fundamental human values each of the types present.

  We can count in one hand the set of building types sufficient for the successful intensification of our historic quartiers, and for the much needed celebration of the unique brand of urbanism that took root right here on our shore.

  Why anyone would want to add towers into the mix rather than extend the local typology and tradition of place cannot be justified in terms of either economic gain, nor cultural expression.

• 54 Urbanismo // Jul 4, 2010 at 5:20 pm

  @ Lewis . . . I thinq Michael has a point . . . “I really do think you have become overly obsessed, let me repeat, OBSESSED, with one particular form of housing, namely a ‘carpet’ of low-rise fee simple ownership units.

  If you approach your virtual charrette convinced you are right you may find yourself isolated.

  As for your preoccupation with shadows, well shadows move constantly and sometimes are a blessing on a hot day and for many reasons.

  Furthermore, regarding sustainability my research http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/New.Nanaimo.Center/pudpn/Comparisons.pdf tells me floor plates stacked upon one another are definitely an energy saver.

  We have both been charrette-ing for along time. We should know by now that diversity reigns and the purpose is to work within the complexity and nuances of peoples’ varying requirements to say nothing of established building techniques.

  What happens at ground level and what happens within the rarefied atmosphere of academe sometimes conflict.

• 55 Michael Geller // Jul 4, 2010 at 6:05 pm

  “Mr. Geller, you have written in the past that you don’t agree with more towers in the Historic Area, which comprises a good portion of the DTES (see also last line of the article quoted above). I would be very interested to hear why you have now flip-flopped on this?”

  David, I haven’t flip-flopped. I am still opposed to towers in the historic area. But I am also opposed to just 3 storey fee simple ‘quartier’ townhouses and apartments.

  What I do support in this area is a mix of low and mid-rise buildings, noting that the mid-rise is the generic form. In some instances, buildings up to 10 storeys seem to work, and I support those. But I continue to remain opposed to ‘towers’.

  I’m glad you raised this point since it highlights that planning and design are not always ‘black and white’ issues. I’m opposed to towers in the historic area, but support towers at Oakridge. I’m in favour of mid-rise buildings in the DTES but oppose a continuous ribbon of mid-rise buildings along Cambie Street, as some have proposed.

  I know this must all sound confusing and perhaps mumble-jumble to some, but the important message is that different situations warrant different solutions.

  There’s no one right answer.

  As for the earlier Bula article, I agreed with the concerns that the city should not increase densities without adding community amenities. I still believe this very strongly. My objection is how best to pay for them.

  I also agree that EcoDensity placed too much importance on ‘saving the environment’ and not enough on the potential to create more affordable housing choices.

  Thanks for referencing Bula’s earlier article. I agree it is still relevant today.

• 56 gasp // Jul 4, 2010 at 7:12 pm

  “EcoDensity had NOTHING TO DO with “saving the environment”. It was greenwashing PERIOD.

  Sam Sullivan in “The Mayor’s Newsletter” from October 9, 2007 stated what peoples’ experience has now shown to be the true intent of the EcoDensity Charter:

  The new Charter will form the basis for altering some City policies, bylaws, incentives and zoning to reduce barriers. . .

  Since a “barrier” to one person is a “protection” to another, it now appears that residents’ property and other legal rights are the “barriers” that were reduced, altered or affected through the EcoDensity policy.

• 57 Vickie // Jul 4, 2010 at 7:19 pm

  Lewis Villegas may find much to despise along the Boulevard in Kerrisdale, but I and my neighbours – almost all women d’un certain age like myself – find it much to our liking. we could start with the fact that the vast majority of the buildings are not condos as Lewis alleges. They are coops, and due to a variety of interwoven factors, they are affordable as well as eminently livable. I have a front door and a back door. I have neighbours who look out for me (more social capital here that in the single family suburb I raised my daughter in or the view strata unit in Fairview I rented briefly). We share the gardening, we mostly manage our maintenance issues ourselves, we share the laundry, we mostly take transit, and walk to the butcher, the baker, the green grocer, the cafe, the pharmacy, etc. In short our footprint is small. I’m not aware of what the units pre acre/hectare is along the boulevard, but I daresay that it is ‘up there’,and I challenge you to find a more livable environment at a comparable density anywhere.

• 58 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:02 pm

  Good comments, gents.

• 59 Richard // Jul 4, 2010 at 11:31 pm

  @Lewis, back to the topic. The building in discussion is at the corner of Marine and Cambie. It is not an historic district by any stretch of the imagination. While it would be great to come up a scheme that would preserve some of the trees on the property. The “local typology” is one story car dealerships and junk food restaurants with landscaped setbacks to make it all prettier to drive by. Very 1960′s. Hardly worth continuing or preserving.

  The main objections to this development seem to be mainly the latest design which is rather blockly and massive looking. Previous designs that included towers and similar densities (I think), seemed to be received much better.

  I think this is a case for them to dust off some of the older plans.

• 60 Living in the West End // Jul 5, 2010 at 7:18 am

  I suspect the next two topics will be the two motions to be discussed tomorrow at City Hall.
  1. The one dealing with greater transparency on the amount of CAC’s, DCL’s and Parking foregiveness each CD-1 might generate or not.
  2. The Mayor’s handpicked West End committee or otherwise known as a Visionista proving ground for those considering political life in our fair City.
  Regarding the first these were the only words the Policy Report contained regarding the Millenium/Rennie project at Davie and Bidwell. Notice not one figure appears although it was agreed that the foregiveness in development fees is over $5 million. Also observed is not one word about the over $900 million owed by the developer to the City snd sny Conflict of Interest statement.
  From P.11 of the Policy report
  4. Community Amenity Contribution (CAC): Staff reviewed the applicant’s development
  pro forma to identify whether the rezoning generated a sufficient increase in land
  value or land lift, to warrant a CAC offering. Staff concluded that after factoring in the
  CD-1 Rezoning 1201-1215 Bidwell Street & 1702-1726 Davie Street 12
  costs associated with for-profit affordable rental housing units and heritage conservation
  costs, there was no land lift and, therefore, no CAC offering applicable.
  http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20091103/documents/p3.pdf
  http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20091215/documents/phea5-yellowmemo2.pdf

• 61 jesse // Jul 5, 2010 at 7:43 am

  @Michael Geller: can you elaborate on why row housing won’t work in Vancouver? There are some interesting examples of such houses in Port Coquitlam and many such examples in eastern cities.

  I’m not convinced increased density in the city is best served using stratas, as the lifespan of strata buildings tends to be more finite. If that’s the goal, fine, but there are implications to a neighbourhood’s long term dynamic if that’s the case.

• 62 David Samis // Jul 5, 2010 at 10:24 am

  Michael, thanks for the clarification. I see now I misread your earlier post re. the DTES.

  But maybe you’ve misinterpreted my other point? I don’t think EcoDensity ever had much to do with “saving the environment”, quite the opposite. I tend to agree with gasp’s take on this.

• 63 Bill Lee // Jul 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm

  You know that the very nice Ashley Mar housing cooperative and the Sing Tao Daily offices are to the west of this new proposed tower and to lie in its shadow in the morning and be blasted by reflected sunlight in the evening from the tower and from the setting sun.
  These are a few of the landmarks noted by Google Maps.

  Unfortunately few people ever notated the area in the modern or the ‘classic’ map-type at http://wikimapia.org/#lat=49.2094953&lon=-123.1171811&z=17&l=0&m=s&v=9

• 64 Bill McCreery // Jul 6, 2010 at 12:20 am

  I’m not convinced Eco Density works quite yet. But, think the concept has merit if a fresh look were taken. One of the reasons is the shift in population [density] in single family areas in the last 30 / 40 years. A typical house on a lot used to have 5 to 8 people living there. Today there might be 3 to 4, often 1 or 2. So adding a suite in the mews or basement just puts the missing bodies into a previously inefficient, in an urban governance context, zoning category. There is more to this notion, but that is the essence.

• 65 michael geller // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:18 am

  A few quick responses. Fee simple or individually owned row houses can be built in Metro Vancouver. I just finished an interview with the Vancouver Sun which is doing an upcoming story on the 3 individually owned units at 33 and Cambie, developed by the late Art Cowie. He intended his project to be a demonstration project, and hopefully it will fulfil this purpose.

  In 10 years, I predict individually owned row housing will be as popular, if not more popular than condominium row housing.

  Now as for EcoDensity, there is a strong ‘movement’ of people, including Peter Busby, Patrick Condon, and many more who believe there is a direct correlation between the density of communities, and their impact on the environment. As a general principal, I agree with the concept, but am the first to admit that far too many people are making bad decisions on the size of buildings because they believe bigger is better as far as the environment is concerned. These people are wrong, since the key to sustainability is successfully balancing competing interests.

  Approving a building at 5 times the permitted density in the name of the environment is an example of what we should not be doing.

• 66 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 6, 2010 at 9:57 pm

  Piggy-backing on Michael’s comments, at a Vancouver Urban Design Forum session a year ago we hear from a UBC grad that one unit in a condo tower has the same ecological footprint as a single family residence. Thus, suggesting that density in towers is a bit like building vertical suburbs.

• 67 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 6, 2010 at 10:05 pm

  I agree with jesse and Bill Lee. Richard, for Cambie & Marine search this site with “the vancouver neighbourhoods backlash continues.”

  There are important points of contact between Vancouver’s Historic Quariters, and Marpole. For example, we need a common “theory of urbanism”. We need to identify the things we can all agree about, not just carp on about all the trash we hate.

  Second there is a broad area of consensus around the need to retool the planning and approvals process. When you consider how central the Department of Planning (DoP) is to our regional economy, you get a sense for how difficult this will be.

  Richard, on the post I have linked my own conclusions were these:

  The question that I still have on the chess board is: what approach provides the best hedge against “irrational exuberance” in the Vancouver real estate market?

  After all, if we are seeking density, livability, and reductions in automobile use, we don’t have to build higher than 3.5 stories above the street. Here, we have a Stale Mate between the tower and the human-scale product.

  However, if we are seeking to keep our land values stable, maybe the answer is that we should not build higher than 3.5 stories above the street. That’s Check Mate on towers outside very clearly defined, and geographically determined boundaries like our downtown.

  I still think that analysis is sound. I will be happy to wear the hair shirt of “obsessing” on human-scale urbanism.

• 68 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 6, 2010 at 10:57 pm

  Vickie, just as soon as I posted “thanks gents” I started having problems posting a reply to you and Richard. For a while, I thought I had disturbed some higher order in the blog-o-sphere… The culprit was my incapable attempt at posting a link for Richard.

  I am delighted with your description of the Boulevard. I have walked those blocks, I have shopped in the stores there, but I haven’t studied them in depth.

  First of all, your position within walking distance to the shopping street on 41st is very advantageous. While I may feel that the design of the Boulevard under-performs, yours is certainly a “quartier” to model in other places in our city.

  Second, I wonder how much of all that goodness is owed to the existence of the BC Electric trams. The real question for the history of the “platting” (street & block layout) of that area is how much of it was intended for handling LRT. I also have not looked at that in detail.

  Your detail that “the vast majority of the buildings are not condos as Lewis alleges” is particularly important. I remember floating the question to Gordon Price over coffee not too long ago whether or not he felt that a street of strata-owners would result in a community with the same characteristics as a street of land title holders (again, I neglected to think about coop ownership). We both agreed that we just didn’t know.

  However, I harbour suspicions. And your response suggests that there may well be reason to maximize straight ownership—coop or fee simple—over strata title.

  Does your coop have rental units, Vickie? The other aspect of the fee-simple, human-scale, high density building is that it pretty much does away with the need for STIR. Most owners will rent a basement and/or an attic as a mortgage helper.

• 69 michael geller // Jul 7, 2010 at 4:32 pm

  “we hear from a UBC grad that one unit in a condo tower has the same ecological footprint as a single family residence”

  Lewis, all I can say is he must have graduated in dentistry, since he doesn’t know the first thing about ‘ecological footprints’. This is absolute nonsense.

  Even if the owner of the condo and the owner of the single family residence drive the same distance everyday, and the two suites are the same size, the apartment will inevitably use less energy since it has less exterior surfaces.

• 70 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 7, 2010 at 11:30 pm

  The owners of the condo will ride an elevator every day. Live load will include both getting the furnishings in and out, getting the people in and out, and getting the groceries/garbage in and out. That is a lot of energy being consumed pushing weight up and down the “street turned on its side”.

  Towers also have the asymmetrical solar loading to deal with. One side is cooking in the sun, while the suites on the other side are calling for heat.

  However, you are right about the “locational advantage”. One would have to assume that towers will be built closer to the core, and closer to LRT than the single family house.

  We also have to take into account the fact that the structure for a house, and the structure for a tall building are at opposite ends of the same scale. I suppose cramming FSR onto one site has land value advantages, though I would put my faith in the market to even that out.

  It was a provocative presentation. I cannot speak for its accuracy. I just thought that the image of the condo tower as a stack of suburban homes stuck together in a heap was something worth thinking about.

  As far as “using less energy” that is still to be determined. The home owner might have a solar panel roof and plug into the grid as a net contributor, rather than consumer. Get that accepted through our friendly Strata Council. The bungalow can make use of passive solar design, adding decks and covered porches to create natural ventilation patterns that condo owner simply can only dream about.

  At the conceptual level, outside our downtown, I still view towers as high-density sprawl.

• 71 Kirk // Jul 9, 2010 at 12:46 am

  http://www.humantransit.org/2010/03/does-highdensity-life-have-a-bigger-ecological-footprint-and-why.html

  Sounds like we just need more poor, friendly people because, once again, rude rich people are ruining everything. Hmmm… I often hear that it’s hard to make new friends around here, and we’re the most expensive place in the country.

• 72 Lewis N. Villegas // Jul 10, 2010 at 8:24 am

  Jarrett Walker will be speaking at SFU on august 4th, so he is a timely review, Kirk:

  “Here, I think, is a valid critique of much of the inner-city high density housing I’ve seen and lived in. It is designed to serve a population of strangers, and to discourage neighbors from knowing and trusting each other. In all the places I’ve lived in the US, Canada, and Australia, I’ve found it’s much easier to meet the neighbors across the fence, in a lower-density setting, than in a sterile apartment hallway or elevator.”

  —Jarrett Walker, on Kirk’s link

  Walker’s point on the ecological footprint of towers is that the built form is a small slice of the pie. The larger implications are the lifestyles of the population being served. In the U.S., Canada, and Australia, condo towers are for singles, who tend to consume more.

  When he takes away importance from heating common area, he dismisses 15% of the building footprint that is housing no one. In Vancouver, half the population living below the poverty line hovers around the 15% mark. When he disregards heating parking garages, he fails to account for living in winter cities of which Canada has an abundance.

  The eye-opening part of Walker’s discussion of the tower high-density form is that he seems to betray a lack of information about human scale high-density. You know, the idea that we can get equivalent densities with either towers or 3.5 stories above the street.

  That’s too bad, one the one hand, the kind of relationships we have in the neighbourhood—and here I agree with Walker—are formed in the minutes it takes to put out the garbage, wash the car, or put a new coat of paint on the porch furniture. It is the reported impossibility of getting any gardening done in the front yards of Cabbagetown townhouses that makes that Toronto quartier special.

  On the other hand, the quality of urbanism that you get with 3.5 storey product, and tower and podium, could not be more different. In the human scale quartier, it is a joy to be on the street. Hanging out at the base of a podium on the hottest day of the year, the people I saw recreating on the sidewalk at Richards and Pacific yesterday, seem to be having a good time, but the streets space lacked many of the most sought after characteristics of urban quartiers.

  See you at the lecture, Kirk. If you want to make friends in Vancouver, try a volleyball at the beach, or a tennis racket at the practice wall. Walk your friend’s dog on a leash. However, the best places to live in have product designed with an eye to provide comfortable amenity to the residents, and a view to deliver urban amenity to the street and the quartier.

  We are not there yet in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland where the “view” that is marketed is always out the window and far away.

• 73 Rather not // Aug 28, 2010 at 10:07 am

  All I can say is I’ve lived in Marpole my entire life. This change will affect my family 100%, and I can’t imagine how all the welfare people around here are going to deal.

• 74 hohum // Aug 28, 2010 at 7:46 pm

  Dear GMGW & readers,

  FWIW, the block at 57th & East Boul is being reno’d and condos are going up above the Choices there. That block and the Safeway @70th are owned by the same person, hence the developments at both locations. Voice your opionion, loud and clear, if you are opposed. This man has no regard for the community, he just wants to pad his shrinking pockets.

• 75 ilivehereinmarpole // Sep 19, 2010 at 10:53 am

  Dear GMGW & readers,

  ok,,i have read this blog..and all i have hear is no,,ok how about all the rotten buildings around marpole there are lots of them ,and if ya look a wee bit south the “airport towe”r,,that is the president height,
  and sad to say this “all the welfare people around here are going to deal.” get off welfare its just for short term use not you long-term time wasting , get jobs ,times are changing and this place needs a good reboot politely saying, and if those old ninnies are complaining well they only have 10-20 yrs left to live,,then what??
  so quit your belly aching and let the land gain some value, and rework some crappy places most of the Granville area is not used to its maximum potential ,ok well lets make it look like Steveston ,then? old style buildings. but please stop belly aching change is going to happen ,like it or not and im happy for this change it will bring a london drugs or a shoppers the area needs one..and need another grocer safeway isnt the only thing .besides the markets if the food last any longer than 3 days…grin

• 76 MarpoleBunni // Sep 20, 2010 at 2:02 pm

  High density leads to conflict, stress, and illness. This is not an economically sustainable approach to health and wellbeing of a population. There are too many downsides to high density that are given no air time because only developers and city officials have a voice and the underlying motivation for them is…what? MONEY!!! The best way to manage space issues is to limit the number of people in the area ie: reduce immigration.

• 77 kelley // Sep 21, 2010 at 6:48 am

  mm very interesting last i heard it was supposed to be a new safeway.nevermnd impact of change of neighbourhood what about the jobs lost as result of closure and the seniors and disabled to who it will effect for their grocerys and medication. this is crazy . I know of someone in the polictal sector who is interested in this matter could i please get contact number for joanne pringle ty a concerned marpole resident

Leave a Comment