Thanks to a poster (Michael B) for this information, sure to be of interest to many.
The long-awaited community meeting regarding the proposed development @ Kingsway and Broadway is finally happening.
Here is the info:
Sunday March 20th 2011. 12noon to 4:30pm at the Native Education College, 285 East 5th Avenue. Door open at 11:30 for viewing of the proposal.
RSVP to: Nancy Wormald 604.873.7388, nancy.wormald@vancouver.ca.
I’ve genuinely enjoyed the discourse regarding this project on this site, and sincerely hope that all those who are opposed to the scale of the development will attend the meeting and share their objections.
24 responses so far ↓
1 Norbert Jakubke // Mar 1, 2011 at 9:41 am
Count me in. The higher the better.
2 Gentle Bossa Nova // Mar 1, 2011 at 9:44 pm
I have a few questions about this proposal.
1. Where did it come from?
There is nothing in this neighbourhood like it, and nothing in any neighbourhood plan (except perhaps the one just floated but not yet even approved).
2. Why is this kind of density not going to wreak havoc on an already convoluted street geometry?
Putting a project with this much density on this place is a bit like crying “fire” in a crowded theatre, then throwing a smoke bomb into the crowd.
I know. There’s going to be a Canada Line Subway running from Commercial all the way to UBC—a thriving centre of high urbanism, right?
Not.
If the mistake of Canada Line made at our municipal hall surely was “not planning intensification in advance of its construction”.
Then, the error being committed here in Mt. Pleasant is “planning too much density far too much in advance of any transportation decision”.
3. What kind of public consultation process is this?
The horse is well out of the barn by now. The proponents have spent all kinds of money in design and design development. And, now, at this late date when all the deals have already been made, we’re going to be asked if its OK to build it??
4. What neighbourhood amenity contribution is going to be pushed down our throats this time?
One of the most horrible examples of non-green building are the hermetically sealed residential units atop the new Mt. Pleasant Community centre just a block from this site—who in their right minds would want to breathe THAT rarified air.
5. Are we going to see changes to the design of the R.O.W. as well as fast and lose densification of a critical site?
The new community centre project, of course, did zero to ameliorate the conditions in the public realm. Crossing Kingsway, or Crossing Main—you could argue that you could try to do both at the same time in front of the community centre—is still madness and a life risk.
6. Why should I—or anyone else for that matter bother to—even attend?
What are the odds that the planners are going to understand these issues, much less be able to provide positive, inventive responses?
3 Roger Kemble // Mar 2, 2011 at 9:42 am
Yes . . . Gentle Bossa Nova
“Where did it come from?”
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20101118/documents/penv2-MountPleasantCommunityPlan.pdf
I don’t see that I the plan?
4 Zoran Popovic // Mar 2, 2011 at 1:26 pm
I received the notice for the workshop about this project in the mail and, unfortunately, will not be able to attend. But I cannot stop thinking about this development and thought I too should urge everyone who opposes this monster be built in Vancouver’s first suburb to attend and give their best opposition to this idea. Timely enough, the article in Tyee “Vancouver’s Downtown Chases out Kids” (http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/02/DowntownChasesKids/) suggests where our city is heading with 26-storey towers of 600 sqf units. I believe Mount Pleasant still looks livable and family-friendly. And the Lee Bvilding should remain the tallest and the most prominent landmark of this area.
5 Bill Lee // Mar 2, 2011 at 3:56 pm
@Zoran Popovic
I was thinking about that too when going past the preent christmas tree site in front of the es-Jantzen swimwear factory.
And the Ford Building downtown as another of the same type, mixed office and residential.
I still like the Bologna-type arcades against the weather over those sidwalks of Broadway, of the Lee Bulding.
Too many towers at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Vancouver
and the Lee building is on page 9 of the Skyscraper Vanocuver page
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=1&offset=700&statusID=1
1912 and see the diagrams page in the same line.
Narrowly http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=28399
I wouldn’t say an earlier Grope and Flail article about Cheng’s first Toronto tower and podium is very enlightening about the contrast with Olde Tor0nto.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto-gets-a-lesson-in-urbanism/article1919091/
6 boohoo // Mar 2, 2011 at 4:35 pm
WIth regards to families–26 storeys isn’t the issue, the 600 sq ft unit is. Families, kids, etc… have been growing up in urban places for a long time–but the units were big enough to accommodate it.
There are towers on Cambie/53rd (?), there are towers in Kerrisdale–they can be part of a neighbourhood, especially one as central as Kingsway/Main/Broadway, but the unit size is critical in my midnd.
7 Agustin // Mar 2, 2011 at 7:07 pm
@GBN, #1: “3. What kind of public consultation process is this?
The horse is well out of the barn by now. The proponents have spent all kinds of money in design and design development. And, now, at this late date when all the deals have already been made, we’re going to be asked if its OK to build it?”
I don’t like tall towers and I think it’s a mistake to put these here but the consultation process looks legit.
If the developer doesn’t spend money on design, how can the public comment on whether they like it or not? How can the City judge whether it is in keeping with the zoning regulations and Community Plan?
By law, the City must consult at various stages of planning before a building decision is made. That includes the Community Plan and the current consultation. If the City hadn’t been living up to its feduciary obligations, there would be heaps of lawyers lining up to sue it.
8 Martin // Mar 2, 2011 at 10:08 pm
@Gentle Bossa Nova You’re totally right! We should block any density projects in Main st, Broadway, Cambie, West End, Kerrisdale, anywhere, you name it. Towers should be banned outside of downtown, even in the West End, while we’re at it. This is the only way we’ll manage to dash the dreams of anyone who ever dreamt they could afford buying property north of the Fraser. And who cares about urban sprawl and commute? It ain’t going to be a problem for those who worked hard to pay 1.5 million $ for a Vancouver Special on Fraser and 31st.
9 Bill McCreery // Mar 2, 2011 at 10:22 pm
There is more to good, healthy living environments than unit sizes bohoo. Look at St. Louis, Glasgow, and Sheffield for some extreme examples. They’ve all been bulldozed they were so bad. Kerrisdale by the way is 3 to 12 storeys, not 20 something, and not many baren in the high buildings.
Vancouver has not settled for sort of solutions. We have and can do again reach higher.
Agustin, how is the consultation process “legit”? The City, by allowing a developer to develop a design which is so far off the mark from what the community vision calls for, and then presenting this design to the public can hardly be said to be engaging in a legitimate public consultation process can it? Especially when this design was developed with no public input over the same 2 year period the vision was being finalized.
10 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Mar 2, 2011 at 11:50 pm
I agree, Bill, the Community planners were talking density and height limits to residents the whole time this tower was being negotiated behind closed doors with the developer. It doesn’t appear that 26 storeys ever once was put on the table for the community to debate.
Then, a few weeks after the rosy “hilltop village” community vision was finally published, a giant tower smack in the village centre suddenly gets announced? That’s hardly open or transparent, to put it nicely.
And now they want to consult on a Sunday? Not a great time for families with kids to give their voice – my kid’s immersed in playoffs, I’ll be at the rink…
Totally agree with Popovic–the Lee already IS the landmark building of this neighbourhood. The tower will dwarf it…ugh.
And what did we learn from Woodwards? That massive towers introduced into a low-rise district like this leads to massive commercial and residential rent increases in the surrounding area, skyrocketing land values, and rampant speculation.
That’s the part that really hurts families and small businesses, boohoo–the rapid loss of affordability.
11 Ron // Mar 2, 2011 at 11:53 pm
I agree that if areas close to the core refuse to take density, that density will be forced farther out – increasing sprawl. Increasing density close to the core is a natural consequence – the downtown peninsula is getting built-out – where else are you going to go? Increasing density at a major crossroads (and future rapid transit stop) only make sense. Cambie & Broadway should be similarly dense – but it is hemmed in by the City Hall view cone.
Building towers on a former Safeway parking lot far away from present or future rapid trasnit corridors (just because the land is available) – King Edward Village – does not make sense.
This proposal does.
12 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Mar 3, 2011 at 12:09 am
Ron, I disagree with your assumption that neighbourhoods are against density.
Mt.Pleasant in this area has been booming with high density projects for years now. Look north of the Community Centre, two more large condo projects going up, but they aren’t towers. The neighbourhood is clearly not against new density, or large amounts of it. This is already one of the densest neighbourhoods in the city, anyway.
The totally out of whack form/scale of this massive tower proposal is the problem.
13 boohoo // Mar 3, 2011 at 7:23 am
Of course there’s more to healthy living than unit size, but it is important. Developers try to squeeze every last square inch of space into left over spaces and call them units so there’s one more to sell.
As for 26 stories, sure–make it say 18 or 20. It is at the crossroads of 3 of the busiest streets in Vancouver and the site of future rapid transit.
Is the Lee building to be the height of Vancouver in that entire neighbourhood forever?
14 Gentle Bossa Nova // Mar 3, 2011 at 8:50 am
“I agree that if areas close to the core refuse to take density, that density will be forced farther out – increasing sprawl. Increasing density close to the core is a natural consequence – the downtown peninsula is getting built-out – where else are you going to go? Increasing density at a major crossroads (and future rapid transit stop) only make sense. Cambie & Broadway should be similarly dense – but it is hemmed in by the City Hall view cone.”
#9 Ron
We need a name for it. Ron is committing the “Density Fallacy” that states that in order to achieve hi-density, we must build hi-rise.
The other way to achieve density is incrementally, on a lot by lot basis, following a community plan that “shapes” that density to support amenities and transit, and structure the neighbourhood.
On King Ed we are all just about on the same page. Whew!
The community plan for Mt. Pleasant identified the triangle block shaped by Kingsway (the real historic story here); Main & Broadway. If we look towards the Lee Building from the doorway of the new community centre (sorry Ghost, no rink there), we can begin to sense the true picture emerging. But don’t look up over you head, the architects of the Community Centre missed this opportunity.
The Lee Building seen from this vantage presents the “model” for the streetwall that could shape the edge of the block being called the “heart” of this community. The land slopes, so the cornice lines will have to step. But the punched-window and overhanging cornice vocabulary of this remarkable piece of architecture embodies a community vision.
I’d like to see it built arcade and all.
Note that the arcade doesn’t wrap the Lee Building, its only on the Broadway side suggesting it may be a throw back to Broadway’s widening. The arcade on Broadway descends right down to the curb, completely covering the public sidewalk, and then building floor space above it. There is a lesson there we can take to market.
However, there is a caution to be heeded as well. The arcade, and a continuous streetwall at this scale, serve to collect (trap) noise and pollution.
So, the other missing component in this discussion is not so much the right suite size for family living (suite orientation, cross ventilation, etc. should also factor). The other missing component is the quality of the environment here decimated several times over by the sheer volume of traffic.
Managing that traffic—scaling it down—is a huge black hole in the community plan. Sticking a tower in it of course, is only going to make it much, much worse. Without proactive measures, I don’t see a transit station here helping much either.
I have not felt a noticeable drop in traffic at Cambie & Broadway. Just an increase in pedestrian counts crossing.
An approach to built form that may work for us going forward is the “form-based code”. The community plan & the process pre-approves a set of building forms or types. The development community is asked to come in and build as many of those as they see fit within the specified zones.
15 Zoran Popovic // Mar 3, 2011 at 11:58 pm
@Martin, Boohoo
To begin, I appreciate everyone’s (very civilized) feedback and responses.
The reason I am against 26-storey tower at this site is because it would be atop the vista that is already one of the highest elevations in the city and, as such, would dwarf anything else already built anywhere. Years ago, when I used to sail into English Bay, I would always notice the grandiose ugliness of Vancouver General Hospital building, before anything else. This is because from, that vantage point, this is the largest building on a fairly prominent elevation. When observing downtown high-rises from the higher elevation, like the Queen Elisabeth Park, or from viewpoints in Fairview, that skyline looks harmonious and friendly, almost reachable to touch. If, however, you look at the same skyline from Stanley Park, the impression is entirely different.
If you take San Francisco as an example, you will recall all the low rises remain in the hills and even the Coit Tower, which is relatively small (but prominent landmark), and all the skyscrapers like TransAmerica are placed in the flats. This provide for some balance from more distant points, and certainly for more harmonious feel of the city as a whole.
On the other hand, Lee Bvilding commands views along Broadway corridor eastward, but in a very different way. That is of the image this city so desperately needs, if it is ever going to become a big city – the ability to cherish and protect its beginnings and promote the myth of glory days.
It isn’t and it shouldn’t all be just the matter of pragmatism and practicality. Cities that matter are very much the result of carefully guarded aesthetic and identity.
Big or beloved cities of Europe know this, and have always set limits to how much can one interfere with the past. On the other end, one can take a look at Boston, massively ravaged and bulldozed in the sixties, in the name of bigger and better. Yet few visitors ever remember the convention center but talk about North End or Back Bay any chance they get.
16 Joe Just Joe // Mar 4, 2011 at 12:34 am
I have to agree that 26 stories just doesn’t make sense here. With what is likely to happen to Kingsgate mall and with the buildings already further up the hill at 12th. I think ~18stories should be the upper limit here and perhaps 16 being the ideal number. The proposed density figures are acceptable and could be accommodated within a lower height.
17 Roger Kemble // Mar 4, 2011 at 3:56 am
I am not quite sure were this conversation is going.
Out of a MP population of 24,000 only half a dozen seem interested enough to blog on and if 200 attend the public hearings it is going some.
What is clear to my singular mind is that there is absolutely no integrity in the planning process, whether the line planners knew what was going on or not, and developers have always had a bottom line approach.
The developers continue a singularity of mind because towers were once, essentially, confined to the West End and Downtown. Now that the cat is out of the bag pretty well anything goes.
Furthermore we can be sure that when a project come up it is the result of pro forma deliberations probably months in the making: the developer has already invested and he isn’t going to back down.
The Vancouver planning department has always been untouchable accumulating a holier than thou attitude probably because professionals, who have regular contact, are unwilling to rock the boat for obvious reasons.
If, say, the PEGBC and AIBC were to get up and demand integrity in the process the good will engendered would be worth a million press releases and medals. Hell will freeze over before that happens.
It could be argued that density in this location is preferable to the tower sprawl, each end of Broadway, in the plan.
Trouble is it isn’t an either or situation.
If, say, concentration of density were to located at the focus of our Village-on-the-hill then I, professionally, would be willing to look closer.
Concentrated towers is certainly preferable to an indiscriminate sprawl of cottages or even six storey stucco boxes.
But that is unlikely: history tells us expedience rules.
18 DeToNARTe // Mar 6, 2011 at 8:14 am
I live in the area & attended the initial planning workshop for the Mt. Pleasant Community Plan – in which locals’ concerns became the BASIS for its “overarching principles” related to 7 key issues, of which “heritage” and “character” are 2.
Mt. Pleasant’s historical context is prioritized in the resulting Plan as its foremost defining factor – from the top: “Mt Pleasant has a number of [..] features that the community wishes to acknowledge + respect as critical in the shaping of the Community Plan… [as] the first ‘downtown’ of Vancouver in the early years of the 20th century… resulting in significant numbers of heritage buildings + features.” Its historical significance means Mt. Pleasant “warrants ongoing promotion as a heritage area of the city.”
As such, any new developments according to the Plan must “Seek to distinguish… from predominant new forms of development in other parts of the City in ways that respond to the unique [...] qualities of the neighbourhood.”
Higher density iS included, specified as “providing high quality, attractive, more energy efficient, and affordable housing which respects neighbourhood character + lowers the carbon footprint,” while retaining + recognizing “the historical importance of the ‘hilltown’ identity.”
The city block in question is even referred to directly: “Develop Watson Street as a special site, perceived as unique in history, character + use.”
Rize Alliance’s blatant disdain for these inclusive, well-thought-out goals insults this community to the core, dashing into dust our hopes + dreams for a rosy Mt. Pleasant future with its 26-foot tower of impending doom…
Rize’s plans do NOT respect the neighbourhood character, or even ACKNOWLEDGE its history (the Jantzen/Cantu bldg. was built in 1912) – let alone show any intention of respecting its heritage.
So it would be a real shame if Mt. Pleasant’s Community Plan got skewered at the starting gate by such an obvious exception to its tenets. Giving Rize’s horribly uninspired design the go-ahead would mark the Plan a failure from the get-go, a flimsy facade without the fortitude to ensure its fruition into the community we want to see…
[@Zoran Popovic, NEVER has anyone so succinctly rationalized my loathing for that VGH eyesore - NOR presented with such clear logic why Rize's tower does NOT work for that location design-wise.. You ought to be there March 20]
19 Roger Kemble // Mar 7, 2011 at 10:50 am
I am looking at the city’s Mount Pleasant Community Plan – 08887 POLICY REPORT DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING November 02, 2010
The report commences with nine bullet items of which perhaps two EcoDensity, 2008 (bullet 3) and Housing Strategy, on-going (bullet 9) may be, emphasis may be, supported by the imminent Rize Alliance project.
Let me say also I do not have a knee jerk aversion to height, per se, athough I have grave doubts regarding the efficacy of EcoDensity, LEED, Green city or Sustainability: empty marketing jargon IMO as OV is demonstrating.
Oh and by BTW Rizedevelopment has come up before on Frances’ blog and I have, for what it is worth, commented. It pivotal to the plan but should not be allowed to set a precedent.
On the face of it the Acton Ostrey concept with inner courtyard is not objectionable: the perennial question arises though, is it public accessible, as say, Anchor Point at the north end of Burrard Bridge. With that, height here it may be preferable to heights arbitrarily, as called for in the plan, either end of Broadway.
Streetscape seems not to be dealt with in AO’s plans. What of the exterior perimeter treatment at street level? Admittedly scale is obscure, the plan premature, but what of an incremental, permeable, non-corporate, no logo, small scale, colourful street presence, continuing the ambience along Main?
Back to the report: the plan centers on a distinctive ‘hilltown’ at the intersection of Broadway @ Main that at face value seems okay: 26 storeys and all. The appellation, sin embargo, “hilltown” as “Village-on-the-hill” is yet more hyperactive abuse of the English language: very miss leading for it is not a hill town as we nostalgically envision in Tuscany (miss leading being the intent???).
Further on, in the report, there are nine other bullet items the last one being “How can Mount Pleasant become a socially sustainable community?” and despite STIR with a market purposely made attractive to absentee off-shore buyers this will not, repeat, NOT happen!
A sketch on page 25 illustrates a tower on King Gate mall. Is this supposed to simulate the approx location of the Rize tower? Unless I miss read, nowhere is the tower mentioned specifically anywhere.
The report is laced with pretty pictures of existing familiarities, Western Front for instance, and IMO a technique, perhaps unwittingly, on the part of neophyte planners, miss leading.
Six stories is mentioned leaving me, at least, to believe this will be the norm. Yet it is always mentioned with the caveat of more and higher.
The plan goes on for thirty-three pages and the above comments will have to suffice so far as I am concerned. Suffice it to say Rize has been in the works for months but nowhere are twenty-six floors, or any other such heights, mentioned.
So far Rize fails to meet the public’s expectations and rhetoric, in The City’s Mount Pleasant Community Plan. Not a good omen!
20 Ron // Mar 7, 2011 at 10:04 pm
If the neighbourhood is willing to take density – say a contnuous street wall / podium / mid-rise form that roughly the height of the Lee Building – or any of the block in an Olympic Village mid-rise massing scheme – that’s fine.
Personally, though, I’d rather see more gaps between buildings to allow light to penetrate (as opposed, to say Parisian blcoks which have very narrow light wells in the middle of their blocks).
If you say that you’ll allow density but also want wide spacing between buildings – the two may not quite be compatible.
Here’s an interesting article from the Globe and Mail over the weekend:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/marcus-gee/let-cities-reach-for-the-sky/article1931176/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Toron
21 Gentle Bossa Nova // Mar 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I don’t understand why Vancouverites should be looking to Paris:
Vancovuer
– Pop 578,041 (2006)
– Area 114.67 km2 (44.3 sq mi)
– Metro 2,116,581 (3rd)
Paris
- Pop 2,193,031 (2007)
- Area 105.4 km2 (40.7 sq mi)
- Metro 11,836,970
“…The population density that comes with high-rise buildings brings livelier streets, more efficient transit use, less energy consumption and healthier, less car-dependent lifestyles. The alternative to building up is building out – the curse of urban sprawl.”
Prof. Glaeser committing the “Density Fallacy” this time all the way from Globe & Mail. Where are the numbers backing his claims on:
1. Liveliness
2. Transit efficiency
3. Energy consumption (going up the stairs in a brown stone uses less energy than riding the elevator in a tower)
4. Car dependency (towers have garages; brownstones do not)
The professor is spouting, not giving us facts. On his “alternative to building up is building out—the curse of urban sprawl”, we should remind him that towers are now “sprawling” in our city.
The alternative is to build up without building so high that you block the sun from the street, or make it so that you can’t walk up to your residence. We can house 15,000 within a 5 minute walk of a transit stop with human-scale hi-density urbanism. Outside the downtown peninsula, why do we need more density than that?
22 Roger Kemble // Mar 9, 2011 at 6:41 am
GBN @ #21
Prof. Glaeser committing the “Density Fallacy” this time all the way from Globe & Mail. Where are the numbers backing his claims on:
1. Liveliness 2. Transit efficiency 3. Energy consumption (going up the stairs in a brown stone uses less energy than riding the elevator in a tower) 4. Car dependency (towers have garages; brownstones do not)
The professor is spouting, not giving us facts.
Well sir, let me give you some facts.
1. Liveliness is dependent on so many variables other than built form. IMO the Olly frivolities (errrr . . . liveliness), for instance, despite all the specially built facilities, were artificially induced leaving a big-time let down when the bills came in. Liveliness is spontaneous, cannot be manufactured, much to do with long building tradition, (check Lent Carnaval currently going on in Rio and New Orleans) and has probably not happened anywhere (Gay parade perhaps) on the lower main land anywhere. I would suggest congestion in the mall, shopping, is not liveliness although some would disagree.
2. Transit efficiency is dependent of variegations of options. And since we are making comparisons El Monstruo, Mexico City, (28M and rising) check out the Metro, Pesaros, taxis, bicitaxis all beautifully working together in concert.
Buenos Aires (12M), likewise, as both cities grew by subsuming their contiguous developed villages (real: not just labelled) with traditional destinations recognizably configured.
The CL line may appear to be successful, but at what cost? Because it runs to capacity doesn’t mean it is efficient: as with the lifeboats, full to capacity, on the Titanic, there are no other options. As for encouraging liveliness forget it: development will be lineal sprawl and movement will be singular and under ground.
The same goes for the proposed the UBC line: utterly preposterous for many reasons, finance and disruptions being not the least. It will kill commercial activity on Broadway.
An interconnected network of street level (no emission) trams connecting traditional neigbourhoods is both affordable and realistic: but lacks caché for a nuevo aspiring conurbation.
3. Energy consumption. The TOWER form . . .
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/New.Nanaimo.Center/pudpn/Comparisons.pdf
. . . is the most energy efficient. However, beyond form a lot depends on building envelope materials and architecture. For instance OV”s wall-to-wall-ceiling-to-ceiling windows puts the green/sustainable myth to rest! Architects cannot resist style over substance and there you go!
Probably a good idea to do the math before you cast aspersions!
4. Car dependency (towers have garages: brownstones do not). By brown stone I assume you mean the terrace. The traditional BS does not because the auto was not universally revered (in some cases not even invented) when they were built. But that is not the case now: there are many local, contemporary instances (my daughter lives in one in NV) were the ground floor level is a garage.
Rize Alliance has much to do before its tower satisfies the pretensions of the Mount Pleasant plan. But RA is just one, minor element.
If you study the plan closely form and density is open. Much of it is the usual mumbo jumbo, culture, social stuff that cannot be quantified by a bunch of neophytes sipping coffee in air conditioned offices. In fact the MP plan sanctions pretty well anything goes in the cross form study areas: a well-honed practice in Vancouver’s planning department.
A plan NOT!
23 Annabel Vaughan // Mar 17, 2011 at 11:15 am
Due to the overwhleming response [150+ signed up]
+ + + + + + + +
VENUE CHANGE
+ + + + + + + +
The March 20 [11:30AM - 4:30PM] workshop
for the rezoning to develop a 26 storey tower
at Broadway + Kingsway has been moved to:
The Salt Building [85 West 1st Avenue @ Manitoba]
confirm your attendance:
Nancy Wormald nancy.wormald@vancouver.ca
24 Jay // Mar 19, 2011 at 3:35 am
No need to worry. Shorter building sans rental units. Done. We don’t want renters in our neighborhood anyways.
Leave a Comment