105 responses so far ↓

• 1 Glissando Remmy // Feb 26, 2012 at 2:34 pm

  Thought of The Day

  “In the past three years, Vancouver’s neighborhoods voices were trumped, citizenry was back stabbed, and snow-lying was the name of the game. One Denominator… Vision Vancouver.”

  Please add as meat-byproducts to the Denominator’s stew… Gregor Robertson, Penny Ballem, Aufochs Johnson, Mike Magee…
  Yeah, Vancouver, wakee, wakee, next election get the VOTE OUT and throw these clowns on their asses.
  Three years is a looooong time, if you ask me, a Brainiac could get a Master Degree, an Alcoholic could go back and forth to rehab a dozen times, a woman could give birth to three strapping boys and one girl, none of which are twins…

  One thing you cannot redo at the end of three years of incompetent municipal government, though…you cannot reverse the damage inflicted to the city.

  Once a 20 stories building is up, it’s going to stay up for generations to come. And it will stay there as a sour puss in the neighborhood, long time after the poli-crooks have retired to their isolated, low density, architecturally shacked, Island of Cortes.

  Double standards? Say that again!
  There.
  Why wait until after the Monday’s evening meeting to be proved right, eh?

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 2 George // Feb 26, 2012 at 3:26 pm

  Thank you Glissy..

• 3 Richard // Feb 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm

  I really don’t understand why some people seem to prefer the 8-10 story buildings that take up the whole site as opposed to thinner towers with 2 or 3 story podiums.

  The wider 8-10 story buildings tend to block out all the sun all the time while the narrow towers block it out in patches for shorter periods of time so at least some of the street has sun on it. The Olympic Village suffers from this.

  I have a few old towers a couple of blocks from where I live in Kits and to be honest, they are no big deal at all. They are ugly 70′s concrete towers at that and they are up hill from my place.

• 4 Brenton // Feb 26, 2012 at 3:38 pm

  Interesting points, Frances. I’m in favour of the revised development, especially after speaking to a protestor the other day who seemed to have no reason against the height per se, just that it shouldn’t be higher than other buildings.

• 5 West End Gal // Feb 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm

  I think Glissand0 Remmy #1 sums it up! Monday it’s going to be only another long night of democracy cubed, like what it has always been.
  Pity so many people are going to waste their time. Remeber? The Vision cllors, the Mayor and city staff.. are all getting PAID!
  Good luck to ya all

• 6 Chris Porter // Feb 26, 2012 at 4:02 pm

  Great points Frances, as a resident of the area I share your sentiments. I welcome more density, especially if it isn’t tearing down affordable units. And what better place for density than Broadway and Kingsway.

  I also echo some of the concerns RAMP has about affects on the 10th ave bike route and 19 stories being too much. But what is the right height? Some people from RAMP have suggested 5-6 stories, which seems tiny compared to the other buildings around.

  I hope the city can find a compromise.

• 7 Tiktaalik // Feb 26, 2012 at 4:04 pm

  I’m irritated by the supporting argument that Mount Pleasant citizens said that this location would be good for higher densities, because while this is indeed technically true, the city planners have made a mockery of the point, complete with faux surprise that people don’t take “larger” to mean that 26 or 19 stories are acceptable.

  It’s obvious to everyone who participated in the planning process of course that “larger” meant something larger than the Lee building, but not radically different. I think many had buildings of the Olympic Village scale in mind and this view would be consistent with polls from these meetings where we see dramatically less support for buildings higher than 13-15 stories.

  I also agree with Frances’ point that most Mount Pleasant people are agreeable on increasing density, but this building form, and at this scale, is just not the way people envision the neighbourhood growing. It would be best if Vancouver had different areas with different tones. Keep the tower and podium downtown and give Mount Pleasant its own style. East of Main between 2nd and 7th there’s plenty of condo buildings developed or in development and these are not causing controversy.

• 8 Frances Bula // Feb 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm

  @Richard. I think it depends how wide those buildings are and what else is on the street. As far as I can tell, Broadway on the south and Kingsway on the west were often in shadow even with two/three-storey buildings there because they were on the downside of a slight slope and angled a particular way. Just to be a boring Europhile one more time, many of the apartments in Paris/London/Berlin/Vienna are those solid blocks of six/seven/eight stories and there seems to be something about that height that appeals to people. I’m sure the urban designers on this blog can explain why.

• 9 Frances Bula // Feb 26, 2012 at 4:11 pm

  @Brenton. Ha, isn’t it funny how our opinions seem to swing depending on how irrational or conniving one side or the other seems to be. I find myself going back and forth all the time on some of these projects, depending on how nutty the last person I spoke to was.

• 10 Frances Bula // Feb 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm

  @Tiktaalik. You remind me of a point I meant to make and didn’t, which is that the biggest gap in this is that planners didn’t help guide the community reps to settle on a range of acceptable heights for those three sites. The absence of any definition of what “taller” or “larger” meant has now led to a LOT of energy spent fighting over that. I’m sure they would say that you wouldn’t want a community plan that’s too restrictive, because residents might be willing to accept more height or density in exchange for some kind of benefits.

  But it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that that is not how residents view the trade-off, even if planners do. At some point, no benefits compensate for something they believe is out of scale for the neighbourhood.

• 11 Frances Bula // Feb 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm

  @Chris. There seems to be some variation among different RAMP members on acceptable size and I’m not sure they have a unified position. Someone else has pointed out that the site could have had 13 stories outright and the Stella nearby is 13 stories, something that generated zero comment in the neighbourhood — I think because the building is brick and square and fits it — doesn’t try to be one of the point towers with views.

• 12 Tiktaalik // Feb 26, 2012 at 4:47 pm

  Another aspect to this story is the accusation that the renders of the building are not accurate and purposely misleading.

  I don’t know what to make of this. Perhaps someone with relevant development knowledge and experience can weigh in on the validity of Ned Jacob’s claims that Rize (with no opposition from city planners) mislead the community with their drawings?

  http://www.straight.com/article-611586/vancouver/ned-jacobs-say-no-rize-alliance-rezoning-kingsway-and-broadway

• 13 Silly Season // Feb 26, 2012 at 5:49 pm

  I don’t know the whole story here, ’cause it’s not ‘my’ hood.

  BUT…it appears to be the same ol’ same, ol’ presentation from the developer/City Hall to the citizens:
  ‘Here’s the plan, neighbourhood. How about a 30 story building. Oh, don’t like that? OK, we’ll make it 26 stories! See, we listened to you!’

  So, again, we hear that people are not against density, per se. But what they are against is stoopid, “unplanned” density, innapropriate heights (or rather, no talk of heights until the property goes to redevelopment application and the architect springs the concept on the neighbours) or even a talk of different heights ,different types of housing styles and sizes. Or what might be possible for the neighbourhood, from the neighbourhood, by the neighbourhood.

  I understand that actually planning a space (x number of condo towers—if any—x number of low rise condos, townhouses, stacked townhouses, etc) is anethema to City Hall as well as the developers themseles, for a variety of reasons.

  But might’nt that trade-off—real community planning with neighbourhood input on a multiplicity of scaled buildings, with real people numbers over 20 years, actually yield some HELP with the City in terms of planning infrastructure, taxation levels, etc. In other words, give some surety in those areas where they are supposed to looking out for the citizens welfare?

  Why must it appear that all of this is so damn higglety pigglety, that we will be in an constant infernal game of “catch up’ on more taxes, buses, etc. and fighting about what types of buildings should/shouldn’t be built in the city? And why should all neighbourhoods have to accept density that goes from 0-60 in 5.7 seconds? In the name of this ill-defined “density” ? Or density as defined (on any given day) by the City and developers?

  It’s bizarre and counterintuitive to put on this show to hurry to development (and a single residential tower, at that)—unless the powers that be believe that that some sort of gravy train will dry up if they don’t act quickly. What are they worried about? Developer money going AWOL? The investment gravy train drying up soon?

  It only feeds into the popular construct that the city and developer are interested only in the most single units they can squeeze out of a development (more taxes/revenue on more units in a building).

  It has nothing to do with retaining any neighbourhood flavour that might make that area unique to the people who live—or even visit— there. Homogenization in Vancouver. Really?! Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg!

  This is not city planning for a variety of family types for family neighbourhoods, guys. This is denuding the cityscape for as much money in as short an amount of time as possible— for those who want to live in or invest in 500 square feet.

  Thoughtless, short-sighted and mean-spirited. Would make the old lumber barons, proud.

• 14 Cam in Van // Feb 26, 2012 at 5:53 pm

  @Tiktaalik The City’s report into the discussion that have surrounded the renderings of the proposed height/size of the development.

  http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120227/documents/phea6memoFeb20.pdf

• 15 Trish French // Feb 26, 2012 at 6:42 pm

  “For those who don’t realize it, a developer can’t be prevented from putting in an application while a city planning exercise is in process.”
  Frances, this is not correct. While the City must process any Development Application under existing zoning when a planning exercise is going on, a Rezoning Application is a different matter. When a planning process is started, staff usually recommends to Council a policy about which types of Rezoning Applications should be considered during planning, e.g. only for heritage, social housing, or institutions. Staff then advises inquirers early whether or not they qualify. While technically they can still apply, it would result in a very quick report to Council recommending refusal.

• 16 Agustin // Feb 26, 2012 at 8:55 pm

  @ Frances,

  many of the apartments in Paris/London/Berlin/Vienna are those solid blocks of six/seven/eight stories and there seems to be something about that height that appeals to people.

  One theory I’ve heard is that buildings of that height approximate the height of the tallest trees (with the exception of the giants found in a few ecosystems around the world). There is something about breaching those heights that seems out of scale for us humans.

• 17 Tiktaalik // Feb 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm

  @Cam in Van: Thanks for that link.

• 18 voony // Feb 26, 2012 at 10:19 pm

  Tiktaalik 12:

  The developer rendering is certainly misleading, and it is, very unfortunate that the developers, and in fact all the people in the business don’t seem to use new rendering technology to improve communication to the public, but to better deceive it, and it is time to put a brake on that:
  I hope the city council will follow action on it.

  Still, That shouldn’t give license for the Nimbys to play the same deception game:
  the Broadway facade is 38m long and 36m height (~29 m before the recessing top levels): so it should look like a square, eventually an horizontal rectangle, but definitely not like a vertical rectangle.

  Furthermore, the ratio height/width (of the street) is around 1 : It is basically what people praise in Paris (building height limited and at usually 37m) and other European cities

  Clearly the rendering touted by Ned is completely out of wack, and try to afraid more than inform…and I think his group could gain some respect if it was not using the same deceptive tricks that the ones they pretend combating.

  (by the way, they didn’t make public the source of their 3D model: there is certainly good reason for that!).

  As mentioned before, the Broadway facade of the proposal is in the “Haussmannian” metric…
  East and South facade could be considered as too low, to provide the typical European “street wall” feeling.

  One thing I could add in addition of the height of the tree, (I think that is also helping at hidding the facade behind) is your field of vision, you can’t see upward more than ~45d without a pain in a neck…and be able to see the sky is paramount (-> so the power of the “Haussmaniann metric”

  PS: I think there is also a market reality to consider:
  Paris tried to built tour in the 70′s: it put the resident all up in arm, but it didnt sell well too…(who bought the flats in the Parisian tour?
  Chinese..and the tour district became the Paris chinatwon in 70′s…)…here tower sell well, and not only because the demography is here…

• 19 Joe Just Joe // Feb 26, 2012 at 10:40 pm

  As someone usually supportive of new developments, this is one I can’t support. The height and massing are out of scale for the surrounding area.
  The density is a touch high ~5.0 should be the upmost limit and only because this site is one of the main focal points of the neighbourhood. Height is still to much, around 14 flrs would be a better fit, 16 at the tops (at least 50ft shorter then what’s proposed). On such a large site they would’ve been better going with two towers and reduced the podiums a floor and opened up a central public courtyard.
  The fact that the Community amenities have been removed isn’t a bad thing though, the money paid by the developer will be landed in the neighbourhood and in theory get more bang for the buck offsite.
  This will certainly be a council meeting worth watching.

• 20 Richard // Feb 26, 2012 at 10:53 pm

  @Frances Bula

  I suspect in Europe it has more to do with the buildings actually being attractive than with the height. It is the human scale details of the streets and the buildings that are more important than the height.

• 21 tf // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:54 am

  Hi Frances.
  Thanks for the reasoned and honest article.
  You and most of your readers are probably aware of this website – SUNN: Vancouver Historic Quartiers, A Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood Network, by Lewis Villegas.
  I love the research they’re doing and submit a link to a particular post “Six measures of ‘good’ urbanism.”
  It identifies why we object to buildings over 6 or 7 stories – they’re ‘bad’ urbanism – out of human scale. If only the City would consider this when approving development!

  http://sunnvancouver.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/five-measures-of-good-urbanism/#more-2157

  Thanks again!

• 22 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 27, 2012 at 7:32 am

  I’m road-testing my presentation to the Public Hearing in a post titled “Livable streets, walkable neighbourhoods, affordable regions” here:

  http://wp.me/p1mj4z-A2

  Urbanism is a phenomenon of our own creation spanning three scales at the same time—local, neighbourhood and regional. Our analysis returns the possibility that—mired in an old paradigm—we may be looking for the right answers in the wrong places.

  Thus, if we measure density one site at a time, then the tower wins hands down. However, if we make the same measurement at the scale of the walkable neighbourhood, or quartier, then the 3.5 storey urban house delivers equivalent densities with a far superior result in the public realm.

  In 2008 Council stated in a directive to the Spaxman Group that “additional density” necessitates “corresponding height”.

  The Vancouver Historic Quartiers study shows this is a fallacy.

  In an analogous way, if we look for housing affordability at the city or local level, we may be looking in the wrong place. While it is true that we will see price variations within the Vancouver City limits, the greatest variations in price will present across the region as a whole.

  Land value rises, and commuter trip length decreases, as we move towards the urban core. This is simply a principle in land economics.

  Going in the other direction, the choices we make for accessing land in the rest of the region are critical. Building the old paradigm and using single occupancy vehicle network to access the region leads to grid paralysis and massive pollution.

  Furthermore, the affordability of the car itself casts the whole project in serious doubt.

  Thus, the fast and efficient transit network looms in the horizon as the right way to rebalance land speculation, and hedge against the market over heating.

  The measure for urban functioning at the local level turns out to be the ‘livability’ of our streets. Today, our arterials carry between 40,000 and 60,000 cars per day. Studies show people reporting the livability of their street starts to drop at about 16,000 cars per day. By 20,000 ADT the streets stop supporting social functioning.

  The City of Vancouver is finding there is little redevelopment along the urban arterials. Furthermore, as is the case at the Rise, that when redevelopment shows up it is of a scale that is out of keeping with its surrounds.

  Our study points to the toxic condition of the arterials as the root cause.

  The Olympic Spring of 2010 demonstrated that fast and efficient transportation can remove cars from the street, and suort a much more substantial pedestrian infrastructure.

  Yet, as long as we insist on keeping the old planning paradigm, we are going to have to fight for ‘good’ urbanism one tower, and one flawed neighbourhood planning process at a time.

  See you tonight.

• 23 Everyman // Feb 27, 2012 at 7:48 am

  @ LNV 21
  Very true. Along the Cambie corridor I wonder how many truly affordable basement suites around $900/month will be lost in favour of Vision-affordable condos at $1,400/month?

  And to those arguing for the tower, I’d like to ask who you think you are, that your opinion should matter compared to those who actually live in the neighbourhood?

• 24 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 27, 2012 at 8:27 am

  Just to be a boring Europhile one more time, many of the apartments in Paris/London/Berlin/Vienna are those solid blocks of six/seven/eight stories and there seems to be something about that height that appeals to people. I’m sure the urban designers on this blog can explain why.

  Frances, tf & Everyman

  The principle of human scale sets the height of the building in proportion to the width of the fronting street or square.

  In Vancouver, for considerations of sun light penetration and dispersal of pollutants, we are recommending a street aspect ratio of 1 : 3 for Vancouver’s arterials.

  Those Paris maisonettes that we all love and admire—and that look more or less the same—are being experienced in the context of the streets and squares that surround them. French urbanism is very advanced, and these considerations are very carefully weighed.

  The Paris Boulevard is neither 33-feet (my guess for Watson Street); 80-feet (my guess for Main); or 99-feet (Broadway after the Bartholomew widening). Their width varies greatly, but they go in the direction of being a lot more like our Cambie Street, than either Main, Broadway or that little gem of local platting… Watson Street.

• 25 Glissando Remmy // Feb 27, 2012 at 9:55 am

  Thought of The Day

  “I’m looking forward to tonight’s City Hall ‘Stone Soup’. George will bring the potatoes, Lewis will bring the onions, Randy and Terry the carrots and the parsnips, Michael will bring the beans, Frances will bring the big spoon, me… I will bring the salt.”

  Here’s the thing.
  I know that you good people, are going for a potluck tonight, but… the City ordnance have already ordered tuna, egg, ham sandwiches & croissants, tea, coffee and juices for the Council members, to be served in the intimacy of their back room.
  You can always watch how they eat if you may, though.

  “New York, London, Paris Munich everybody talk about Pop Musik, talk about… shoobee doobee doo aaa…”

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HaAOCGb3bw

  Forget a moment about the Rat Race. The whole process is up side down, inside out.
  The process is rigged.

  There is no Master Plan.
  There is no Vision.
  There is no Leadership.

  Most of it, was let go, retired or fired. Only the kosher pickles stayed.

  Wouldn’t have been better if the whole process started with the end? Take the council’s naivete on ‘white’, with mayo provided by the City Planners, sprinkle neighborhood input and spices and then… go for a good sandwich developer, to put it all together for you!?
  As it stands right now, the sandwich developer serves you whatever they want you to have on… ‘white’!

  It’s going to be another long night. Maybe you’ll get some laughs, maybe you’ll get some boos, what you will not get… is your precious hours back!
  As for the European comparison… we went through this before, don’t get me started again.
  Here, you eat chicken; over there, they eat frog legs; they taste like chicken, but that’s all there is. Ok?

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 26 Morry // Feb 27, 2012 at 10:06 am

  Remmy is right on this one.

  “The process is rigged.

  There is no Master Plan.
  There is no Vision.
  There is no Leadership.”

  With the city flying by the seat of their pants and having just fired their Chief Planner one is left to wonder where all this is heading. Hoping the Penny is not in charge!

• 27 sandY // Feb 27, 2012 at 1:11 pm

  Ms. Bula,

  I am the woman you are calling ill-informed. No disrespect, but please note: the removal of the artist production space and STIR rental units has not “reduce[d] the building’s bulk” as you stated. The former 9,200 sf artist production space will now be converted into commercial retail and even though the 62 STIR rental units are gone, the market condo units have increased from 206 to 241. The fsr has actually increased from 5.33 to 5.55 and the original tower may have dropped from 245 ft to 215 ft but that 30 ft has been added to the tower at Broadway which has increased from 89 ft to 118 ft. Does this seem like the bulk has been reduced?

  In addition, a developer should already know that purpose built art space is more expensive to build than repurposing old buildings so why that was offered in the first place is questionable. Was it an attempt, along with the free art space that has been offered all year, to garner artist support? Also, I am well aware that a cash contribution is being offered. The point I’m making is that there are NO immediate public benefits. Developers and the City prefer cash contributions because it’s more beneficial for both parties. An off-site amenity is insecure. There is no guarantee if the money will come directly back to the community, when it will come and if it will be spent on what the community wants.

  Next, have you read the Mount Pleasant Community Plan (MPCP) cover to cover? If not, I suggest you do so. The developer keeps stating that this project conforms 100% to the MPCP. This is a lie. If you look at Section 3.4 of the Mount Pleasant Community Plan, it does state that there is opportunity for additional height (mid-rise to high-rise) but that it is contingent on 2 factors: further urban design analysis and important public benefits. The requirements under those 2 factors have not been met.

  This is more than just an opposition to a tower. The requirements to justify that amount of height and density over and above what’s allowed outright have not been met. I could go on and on…

• 28 Adin // Feb 27, 2012 at 1:16 pm

  Unique pocket neighborhoods in our city are important, they help define vancouver and ensure that we dont fall into anonymity. Toursits and people from all over the city venture into pocket neighborhoods for the street level experience. It just so happens that Mount pleasant is Vancouver’s first Neighborhood. It has a certain historic nature and feeling to it. Yes, there are areas in our neighbourhood that need to be re-developed and require some amount of density but I personally feel that the this should be done carefully and not just to add major amounts of density. Otherwise we risk destroying this character and feeling that defines our neighbourhood. I feel that any increase in height should be done gradually with a great respect for the history and character of our city as well as trying to address community needs.

  It seems as though this proposal is being put fourth with very simple economics in mind.. increase density = increased supply and decreased demand, build large near rapid transit to discourage car use. While these principles make great economical arguments for affordability and public transportation it’s not a holistic perspective by any means. Using simple economics of supply and demand, that has yet to result in affordability, to justify the reshaping of an entire community without consideration for the livability, walkability, traffic, shadow impacts, energy use and other major factors is a sure way to turn our neighborhoods into anonymous, congested spaces.

  The community plan that we have in place clearly states:

  It is important to note that additional height (as opposed to density) is
  a very sensitive issue where there was the least convergence of
  community opinion during the community plan process.
  My main concern is the HEIGHT, massing and character insensitivity that this building will bring to the nature of my neighbourhood.

  I am concerned about the amount of traffic generated with the second story grocery store that is as big as the IGA. Especially since this site is right next to the proposed rapid transit station and the only way in and out of the building is through Watson St. to 10th (a bike lane) and Broadway (a main thoroughfare with pedestrians crossing often)

  I am concerned that the developer has mislead the public. There have been misrepresentations in the reduction of height (26 stories to 19 stories was claimed to be “Overall height reduced by 27%” when in fact the floor heights were increased and it was only a difference of 2-3 stories and 11% reduction). They have also handed out their promotional material with the City of Vancouver logo attached. Their “Community Center” on their development site (as they have labeled it) is misleading the public into thinking their full time center is a City run community facility and that the information they are giving the public is valid. Their model is not to scale and they have images of non-existing buildings surrounding theirs to make it look as if it fits within the scale.

• 29 sandY // Feb 27, 2012 at 1:23 pm

  Also, the current zoning on the RIZE site allows 30 ft (NOT 13 stories) and 1.0 fsr outright. (Refer to the C3A zoning by-laws that are written by the City). To go above 30 ft, you must go through the Development Permit Board and meet certain requirements. To go to 3.o fsr, you must also meet certain requirements as per the C3A zoning by-laws. The RIZE site does not allow 13 stories outright. This is an out and out lie. It allows 30 ft (9.2 m/ 3 stories) outright.

  I have personally talked to the developer about this.

• 30 George // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:15 pm

  sandY, thank you for taking the time to give further clarity.

• 31 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm

  “dismayed about the knee-jerk and uninformed anti-developer rhetoric” really, your a journalist correct? then do the research before commenting on something you have no clue about as seen with this whole comment of yours.
  Mt Pleasant community groups, namely RAMP, have spent the past year of their own time and money compiling and researching the information and the FACTS and have been presenting the community at large with FACTS, not the fallacy and marketing window dressing put out by the Developer Rize Alliance not even the City themselves.
  Its actually very clear cut and simple, this building does not conform in any way, shape or form with the Mt Pleasant Community Plan and in its most basic form is a Developer’s money grab, higher tower means more dollars.
  If you want the proof, attend the Public Hearing or watch it online, get informed and educated Vancouver and stop being so complacent, its what the Developers and City Hall depends on in order to continue their Dictatorship of our city and screw our Democratic process but lucky for you there is a group of people out there who have done all the work for you, go to Rampvancouver.com for the truth!
  Trust me, I am one of those people who did the research and got educated and the FACTS are glaringly clear, in fact they are TRANSPARENT, unlike our current Governement body.

• 32 JohnA // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm

  What I find interesting is that Rize’s other building OnQue only 2 blocks away has been open for ages and is not fully sold out. So why the need for all the density and height at Broadway and Kingsway?

• 33 Frances Bula // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:50 pm

  @sandY. It’s entirely possible that the developer pitched the space to be inside the building because that has been the practice until now. In fact, the city has sometimes resisted having developers offer cash for amenities instead of trying to fit them into their buildings. I wouldn’t presume to jump to the conclusion that the developer was trying to pull a fast one by offering to incorporate the space in the building.

  How is $6.25 million in cash more beneficial to the developer? And do you think that’s not enough? You seem very dismissive of it. Do you not think it might be a benefit if the city could actually buy more space with that money?

• 34 Frances Bula // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm

  @Trish. Hey, Trish, here I am, learning something new every day. I just had two planners from two other municipalities tell me they couldn’t refuse applications for rezoning even if they violated the Regional Growth Strategy so I extrapolated from that.

  So do you have any explanation for why the city would have even allowed this to go forward while there was a community planning process going on at the same time?

• 35 Frances Bula // Feb 27, 2012 at 2:56 pm

  @Michelle. I live four blocks from this proposed development, was the first journalist in the city to write about it (the reason your group got going a year ago is because of my blog post) and have read lots about it.

  I do find that community groups sometimes interpret city zoning and documents in a particular restrictive way. For instance, you say that the building does not conform in any way with the Mount Pleasant Community Plan. But that site was in fact identified as a good site for additional density. The problem is that no one ever identified, in the plan, how much density the neighbourhood was willing to accept. Now, after the fact, the developer/city planners seem to interpret on the high side and some members of the community are interpreting it on the low side. But to say it doesn’t fit in any way with the plan seems like a bit of an exaggeration.

• 36 Frances Bula // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:03 pm

  @JohnA. Are you suggesting there’s not a demand for housing in Mount Pleasant? That’s not my impression.

• 37 Frances Bula // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm

  @sandY. But, again, I think this is a question of people not understanding how zoning works. Yes, to go above 30 feet, buildings have to go through certain requirements, but they aren’t very onerous. That’s why there have been so many buildings in the area in the five- to eight-storey range going up with not much fuss. The city sometimes sets a very low height/FSR for a building to go up outright. But that’s not to keep height or density out of that area. It’s to allow the city (and community) to have a little more control before allowing the building to go up to something much higher — a height that was always contemplated as being within the norms, but that the city wanted to have more say on when it comes to design and massing and so on.

• 38 tf // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:21 pm

  Hi Frances – re#34 – “why would the city allow something to go forward while a community planning process is going on at the same time?”

  This is what has been happening in the DTES for the last many years. The HAHR was in process – the community objected due to the social impact. The city approved a Social Impact study, funded staff and an office – then nothing.
  Last year at this time council brought the new rezoning to public hearing. Remember Jan 20’11? The HAHR was on the agenda and then the city pulled it – they formed a LAPP – Local Area Planning Process – with the DTES Neighbourhood Council and the Building Community Society as co-chairs of a committee with a report due Dec ’11.
  But – the city carved Chinatown out of the DTES and approved the HAHR for Chinatown. Why?

  In my opinion – major fundraising and lobbying from developers and inside deals with Vision.

  We are now seeing the first proposal under the HAHR – at the SW corner of Main and Keefer – in little ol’ Chinatown where the surrounding buildings are 2 and 3 stories – a proposal for a 17 story condominium tower. I don’t have an adjective to describe how horrendous that would be!

  Why would the city entertain this proposal?
  Your guess is as good as mine.

• 39 Bill Lee // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:28 pm

  @Joe Just Joe // Feb 26, 2012 at 10:40 pm
  “The density is a touch high ~5.0 should be the upmost limit and only because this site is one of the main focal points of the neighbourhood. Height is still to much, around 14 flrs would be a better fit, 16 at the tops (at least 50ft shorter then what’s proposed).”

  Focal point? I would say that the corner is more a pass through, a Grande Carrefour of transit, cars and people in them.
  Certainly the crowds I see walking aren’t looking up or giving a glance at the Lee Tower.
  (And Tim Louis, ex-councillor, has an offie on the Broadway side, 2nd floor, of the Lee . I wonder his views on “The View”)
  I can imagine residents and passers-through being blinded by the wall of glass on the south and west walls acting as a solar furnace mirror for heat and light to the blocks south of it.

• 40 Joe Just Joe // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm

  I’m curious Frances, as a resident not a journalist what is your opinion on the development? How would your proposal be different, or would it? Curious what the other residents would like to see, both in terms of height and in density.

• 41 Bill Lee // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:44 pm

  And in the weekend Globe and Mail, architecture critic Lisa Rochon quote one engineer that present glass towers will only have a life of 20 years.
  We can look on the Skyscraperpage.com to see what has or is currently happening to “old buildings” of the 893 listed.

  In looking for a more direct source of Kesik’s statements I came across the AIBC eNews page.
  Horrifying to see their “lobbying activities” $$$
  aibcenews.wordpress.com/

  Lisa Rochon wrote
  “A recent attack on the “architectural pornography” of the 82-storey Aqua Tower in Chicago by Ted Kesik, a University of Toronto professor of building science, has caused a serious rethink of the glassy skyscrapers that now dominate cities like Vancouver and Toronto, where another 132 towers are currently in the process of being built. To Kesik and other building scientists, the uninsulated concrete slab floors that sweep seamlessly from Aqua’s interiors out to its exterior balconies are typical of abysmal cold-climate design.

  Especially wasteful [of heat and electricity] are glass towers, many of which also use inferior-quality window-wall systems that can start to leak after just five years. Imagine the technology of cars or computers regressing – rather than advancing – by fifty years. That’s the architectural monster that has been created with glass towers.

  …Kesik predicts an average shelf life for today’s glass towers of only 15 to 20 years, provoking a massive new problem of how to retrofit them when the glass starts to fog and condensation leaks inside. By contrast, the brick-and-masonry towers that that saw their heyday in the sixties and seventies may have come with thin glass and no insulation – but they’re incredibly durable and fairly easy to retrofit. How to replace the skin of contemporary glass towers, especially those that are nearly 80-per-cent transparent? Evacuation will likely be required, so that the skin can be peeled away, one floor at a time.

  Is there hope? Ontario’s just-released update of its Building Code is a good start, one that will heavily penalize developers for creating buildings whose cladding is more than 40-per-cent glass. That’s more in line with the Nordic countries and much of Europe, where the high cost of energy has created crisp, engaging buildings that use about half the energy of ours.”

  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/lisa-rochon/tall-thin-curvy-gorgeous-and-heating-the-winter-sky/article2349311/
  Lisa Rochon
  Tall, thin, curvy, gorgeous – and heating the winter sky
  LISA ROCHON
  From Saturday’s Globe and Mail
  Published Friday, Feb. 24, 2012 3:45PM EST
  Last updated Friday, Feb. 24, 2012 3:46PM EST

• 42 Melissa // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:48 pm

  To Frances:
  Wow you blow a lot of hot air out of that misleading mouth of yours. I thought journalism was supposed to be objective? I get that this is a blog, but get off your high horse and realize that just because you are lucky to have a voice in the media doesn’t mean you know everything nor should you pretend to know it just to stroke your apparently huge ego! You dismiss relevant information put forth by hardworking and educated non profit group members that have a history of dealing with political issues and social activism, then you spew out half truths while giving yourself undue credit for forming some of these groups?! Right now I am very wary of your actual knowledge level on this topic by the way you are ranting on with only vague backing to your points. I suggest you choose to read some city bylaws and the MPCP as your bedtime stories tonight so that you can get caught up.

• 43 Frances Bula // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:51 pm

  @JJJ. As I said, I would have liked to have seen some different massing/height options presented. Like most members of the public, I’m not an architect or even very good visually. I need to see different ideas to get a feel for what I like best.

  That’s what makes me sad about this is that there was a drive from the beginning towards the same building typology we’ve seen elsewhere, without much reference to the neighbourhood’s existing character. Maybe it’s true, as some have said, that a lower building evenly spread across the site would have felt massive and overwhelming. But I’d at least like to have seen the developer experiment with a little and test things for neighbourhood response.

  I think the current design is a lot better than the first version I saw but I’m still not convinced it’s the best match for the neighbourhood.

• 44 Frances Bula // Feb 27, 2012 at 3:55 pm

  @Melissa. Just based on the tone of your posts, I’d be inclined to be wary of information you present. I don’t believe I’m ranting. In fact, I was critical of the developer and the process too, if you want to go back and look. But, like a certain number of people I deal with, you seem to believe that those who disagree with you in any way are The Enemy.

  In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not on a high horse or any horse at all. I’ve just been making personal comments and raising questions about things I don’t have the answer for. Certainly I don’t sound as hostile or as high-horsey as you do at the moment.

• 45 Trish French // Feb 27, 2012 at 4:26 pm

  @ Frances. Further to your question about why the city would have even allowed this to go forward while there was a community planning process going on at the same time.

  The Terms of Reference for the Mt. Pleasant planning program included a rezoning policy “..with the intent to allow private rezonings which are consistent with the directions emerging from the process.”(http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20070417/documents/p2.pdf)

  My recollection is that the developer came in with a rezoning inquiry (not a formal application) for this site around the same time as the Mt Pleasant planning process started. They were advised to participate in the planning process. They only made their formal application in July 2010, and the Plan was approved in Novembeer 2010 (altho probably the content was firmed up well before).

  I believe that at the inquiry stage the project was of interest to planning staff because they felt its landmark location warranted a taller building; and because it presented an opportunity for rental housing (since deleted from the project).

• 46 Julia // Feb 27, 2012 at 5:00 pm

  Melissa, whatever credibility you had with me – you just lost.

• 47 HKHoward // Feb 27, 2012 at 5:05 pm

  The council meeting tonight will be full of fire and brimestone but will change nothing. The decisions are already made. The developer discusses with the planning department which has enough input to take ownership of the project and then recommends it to Council. Public input is an after thought and far too late to have any impact. I know this to be true – I lived through it with the Westbank development at 6th and Fir which violated several guidelines of the Burrard Slopes plan. Nearly 200 local people were 97% opposed in the submissions to council and the application passed easily with Vision voting (as usual) in a block. It’s a done deal folks!!

• 48 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 27, 2012 at 5:27 pm

  @Michelle. I live four blocks from this proposed development, was the first journalist in the city to write about it (the reason your group got going a year ago is because of my blog post) and have read lots about it.

  Then you would know Francis, with all due respect, that RAMP has consistantly and effectively produced documentation and graphic renderings that are closer to the truth than both either the City or Developer has shown the public.
  Our group consists of Urban Landscape Architects and former City employees etc, people in the know and furthermore we make sure through other independant, qualified resources that our facts are correct as we don’t want to be lumped into the group of liars and deceivers out there but rather an objective and transparent source of information.
  We do not claim to be experts, but believe me, we seem to see the bigger picture a hell of alot better than our Mayor and some members of the City’s Planning Department.
  You cannot refute our information plain and simple and those that do are the ones trying to do damage control because they know they screwed up and now have to cover up!
  Want more proof, attend the Public Hearings like I suggested before where the truth will come out, better yet, the public should take this opportunity to get better informed and attend the Public Hearings and have their say………just look at our current Government and how one sided ‘Visionally’ slanted it is, do you think this is becasuse they deserve to be in power….hell no, its because not enough politically informed citizens did not come out to vote!
  I can assure you, the members of RAMP looked at both the pro’s and con’s of this Development and time and time again the facts proved that this is a very bad idea for the community in its present state.
  Its also very embarrassing to have a Mayor shouting from the rooftops how we plan on being the greenest city but yet allows the concrete (ungreen) jungle to continue to encroach our neighbourhoods.
  Mt Pleasant can grow to accomodate affordable housing and accept more density without High Rise Towers, any planning student could show you how……amazing how our current Government won’t accept that…..dare I say it again, Developer money grab for height!

• 49 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 27, 2012 at 5:29 pm

  HK Howard I feel your pain but we cannot let up and you never know what the future holds.

  Its daunting and time consuming but worth the effort so attend the Public Hearing and speak….miracles do happen.

• 50 Lee Chapelle // Feb 27, 2012 at 5:35 pm

  The thing that jumps out at me is that everyone is claiming that the Mount Pleasant Community Plan supports their case.

  The relevant section of the MPCP is Section 5 (1) where the three sites are identified for potential extra height and density, The Rize site, Kingsgate Mall, and IGA. The developer and City seem to take that as a justification for reaching for the moon in height and density with this project.

  What it not being mentioned that in this section the other two sites are the ones where a change in zoning is specifically mentioned; it is not mentioned in 5(1)i, the Rize section. That section talks about the creation of an “iconic” building around *some degree* of higher density, presumably . Combine that with all the talk of preservation of the scale and look and feel of buildings surrounding the “heritage heart” of Mount Pleasant, maintaining the current scale, and all in all it seems very clear that a massive, generic concrete and glass tower is not iconic and not what the MPCP indicates for this site.

  Even if you throw out the MPCP, this level of density in this relatively tight location is asking for a potential traffic nightmare on 10th, a major bike route, Watson, supposedly a heritage street, NOT a laneway, and Broadway, already a very busy corridor.

  I took part in a lot of the MPCP meetings and we were under the impression that some small bonus above 3.0 fsr and 70 ft was what they had in mind. That would much better for this location in my opinion, and an eye-catching design that would make the people here proud instead of nauseous.

  Remember, a very tall tower is slated for right across the street at the Mall; and with a lot of new density already on stream just north of here on Scotia Street, how much density can neighboourhood like this absorb and remain livable, much less maintain its character?
  Lee

• 51 Silly Season // Feb 27, 2012 at 5:40 pm

  @ Adin #28 Exactly. Why do we not come up with real population numbers for planning purposes, instead of the nonsense of trying to seemingly do ad hoc tower drops here there and everywhere. Maybe the populace would surprise City Hall, if they were actually involved in co-planning the ‘hoods. This incessant ‘add a STIR here, add a STIR there’ is pretty insulting. They just can’t fall back on the other reason: we won’t be able to buy cheap land, if everyone knows what we are planning or where these multi-res buildings might go. There is no cheap land! But again, there might be more surety in forward planning for transit, and other amenities.

  Here’s some out-o-the-box-thinking: let’s do these things differently, rather than seeing neighbours continually having to come out to City Hall with flaming torches and pitchforks.

  @Bill Lee #41. This does not surprise me. New York is also experiencing tower problems from the operational side. And here in Vancouver, where we have continually scrambled to fill a building trades deficit, I think we can expect more tales of wonky buildings re: quality issues.

  Oh, sorry, those building deficiencies in Oly buildings have all been dealt with, right? *cough*

  And if you will allow me further license. The bland, glass downtown towers are actually a fitting tribute to the current thinking in Vancouver: where bigger is automatically presumed better, where vertical “size matters”, where flash is judged more important than substance, and where each vies against the others, to earn some kind of chest thumping cred amongst the brotherhood. But where quality of character, and materials, is sadly lacking, in many of them.

  (In the event of a flacid future for these architecturally phalic failures, I think I will be sinking my money into the retro-fitting building equivalent of Viagra: anyone know of any good, publicly listed scaffolding companies?).

  One needs to ask, “How does this current concept of building development align with the supposedly more progressive, greener-thinking, energy saving oasis city buliding ideal of Vancouver?”

• 52 Lari // Feb 27, 2012 at 7:01 pm

  I think the decison to take cash instead of an on-site amenity needs explanation – by the City Manager and Mayor’s office. Cash is (or was under previous Councils) only accepted in cases where a suitable, supported on-site amenity cannot be identified This is the official CAC policy: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/Guidelines/C025.pdf The reason it is virtually always preferable to take an in-kind, on-site amenity is because there is no land cost. In this case there was support for in-kind, on-site CAC in the form of affordable social housing. As others point out, the removal of that housing didn’t substantially reduce the FSR of this development.

  It is incumbent on city council to ensure that the community is not being hoodwinked by a cash grab for some out-of-community purpose, that will eventually cost more than it needed to. For example, once the public hearing is over and neighbourhood people go home, will the cash be allocated to losses at Olympic Village? Will Council call that “serving the neighbourhood”?

• 53 Higgins // Feb 27, 2012 at 8:38 pm

  I second Morry’s #26 comment on what Glissando #25 said:
  “Remmy is right on this one.

  “The process is rigged.

  There is no Master Plan.
  There is no Vision.
  There is no Leadership.””

  …and the meeting is on…
  Glissando knows what he’s talking about!
  I am not the only one who agrees with this conclusion.

• 54 Westender1 // Feb 27, 2012 at 8:46 pm

  It should not be the responsiblity of citizen groups to identify discrepancies in application information and to call into question the reliability of documents submitted by development applicants – that is the job (paid for by taxpayers) of an objective and engaged civil service. When I read memos like this one, I’m reminded of a rather famous jingle: “one of these things is not like the other”:

  http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120227/documents/phea6memoFeb20.pdf

• 55 Joe Just Joe // Feb 27, 2012 at 9:22 pm

  Listening to the meeting tonight, certainly seems like council is dragging the 5th item along much longer then needed. Wonder how many nights the Rize proposal will have to be spread over now, and how many of the speakers won’t return. There must be a glitch in the matrix cause I’m having a bad case of deja vu.

• 56 Brenton // Feb 27, 2012 at 11:06 pm

  @Everyman #23:

  “And to those arguing for the tower, I’d like to ask who you think you are, that your opinion should matter compared to those who actually live in the neighbourhood?”

  I live five blocks away from the site and walk by it on a daily basis. I “actually live in the neighbourhood”.

• 57 brilliant // Feb 27, 2012 at 11:30 pm

  Not sure why folks are getting all worked up-we all know Vision will ignore whatever residents want and do the bidding of their developer bagmen. We’ve seen it from Marine Gateway to Shannon Mews and other trashed neighbourhoods littered across the city.

  The sad thing is so many Mt.Pleasant voters fell for Vision’s claptrap last November. Now they reap the “greenest city” whirlwind.

• 58 ThinkOutsideABox // Feb 27, 2012 at 11:42 pm

  @ Lari,

  I think the decison to take cash instead of an on-site amenity needs explanation…

  That’s a very good point Lari. I had heard it said recently that the city’s financial reserve (contingency?) is depleted and consequently the city is opting for cash contributions instead of onsite amenities. Perhaps a columnist or reporter focused on civic issues could look into this to see if there’s a story/for the public good.

• 59 voony // Feb 27, 2012 at 11:48 pm

  We could have love to hear more than one speaker, but unfortunately Councillor Carr disagreed to extend the meeting past 11:30am and to give more opportunity for the public to speak tonight.

• 60 Jon Petrie // Feb 28, 2012 at 12:43 am

  Re #57 — Councillor Kerry Jang said very clearly that he had a head cold did not want to go beyond 11:30 pm

• 61 gman // Feb 28, 2012 at 1:02 am

  Joe Just Joe#54,its the Delphi Technique,Google it or try this. http://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n10.pdf It was developed by the Rand Corp. in the sixties and its alive and well today.

• 62 Tiktaalik // Feb 28, 2012 at 1:35 am

  I was only able to watch part of the proceedings online, had to step out in the middle of the presentation by the Rize Alliance people. I see that the meeting minutes are up but no video. Can we expect the video tomorrow or does it not often appear until later?

  Did they get to citizen comments? If so what number did they end on?

• 63 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 28, 2012 at 1:51 am

  I saw Jon, I missed voony…

  Speaking of urbanism that supports social mixing, nothing like a public hearing for that.

  The two stand outs for me tonight were—in no specific order—the planning department explaining their theory (they would call it ‘policy’); and the questions from the Council to the proponent’s presentation, which gave speakers a lot of insight about what to talk about.

  Staff: Peter Burch, lead planner for Mount Pleasant, and Scot Hein, Senior Urban Designer.

  Peter mapped out a community planning process that dumbfounded my neighbours. At least those that attend these kinds of things. One woman was describing how she was up at 3 a.m. working on her presentation to Council. I offered to help.

  The planning process had the planners essentially canvasing the community for what it was they wanted—what was missing—so that the towers could move in and give us some Land Lift to pay for it all.

  Planning department was in discussions with the developers for over 4 years. The planning process took two years and was approved by Council last November… or possibly before the election. The Rise tower, people who participated in the process have said, came in the last two months of the planning process.

  6.25 Million for this tower towards the City Pot. Off-shore money. The artist space was moved out of the project because the project was too rich for it. You could get more space for that money in another location.

  No guarantee that “staff’s understanding” that the 6.25 million will be spent in Mount Pleasant. That one is going to be a political decision. Punch another hole in the process.

  The planning process didn’t have the Mo-Jo to ask the real questions… You know, like livability of the street, the need for redevelopment to act as an engine of change, the history of the Lee Building, etc.

  At one memorable moment a B&W photo of the Lee Building in 1922 (corner of Broadway & Main, the one with the arcade facing Broadway), and a current shot from the same angle were compared. The comment was:

  “Look how little has changed.”

  [I couldn't get traffic counts from VanMap again. Apparently if you use a computer designed by Steve Jobs, you can't access VanMap data.]

  However, I can tell very well what has changed on Main Street since 1922—the volume of traffic. It is over 40,000 cars per day, although I can’t state that with precision, and it is killing the life on the street.

  VanMap did show me widths for the streets:

  Main 99 feet (86 feet south of 20th or so)
  Broadway 99 feet
  Kingsway 99 feet
  Watson 33 feet

  At a 1 : 3 aspect ratio, buildings fronting Broadway, Kingsway, and Main should be 33-feet tall. 11 feet, or one storey fronting Watson.

  The Rise proposes to build 70-feet fronting Watson, and will locate all its truck loading bays and underground garage entries on Watson. Turning what the plan would have as a “unique street” into a back alley.

  The Councillors identified that issue in their questions.

  Staff sorted the attitudes in the ‘hood into two camps. Those that want to preserve the rickety old buildings (my characterization), and those who want redevelopment because they want progress (again my own choice of words).

  Of course, I don’t fit into either group.

  (1) I am concerned that with the waning of the baby boom there will not be enough redevelopment to improve all the areas that need a fix.

  (2) What I don’t want is for all the redevelopment to land on just three sites. I want to spread the density, and the positive results from new development, throughout the neighbourhood.

  However, an urban design plan with three hot spots of redevelopment, and everything else staying exactly the same is exactly the urbanism espoused by Scot and Peter.

  Lame or lazy urbanism, hard to distinguish…

  Scot also explained how the City staff view Kingsway as a route composed of four “urban villages”. The Rise at Mount Pleasant, something else, then Norquay at Clark, then one more.

  As far as urban design that is grounded on the human experience of place… I saw nothing.

  The architects had one ground level rendering showing all kinds of bustle against a building wall that looked like nothing I’ve ever seen before in Vancouver. Totally descended from the moon. Showing school girls with blond hair and skirts skipping on the sidewalk, a young couple smiling in the foreground, everything taking place out of doors…

  Obviously, these folks have never hung out at Clarke & Kingsway (Norquay) where nothing every happens on the sidewalks, and nothing every will because there is just too much traffic.

  To boot, the street sections are as mean as they come. Traffic sewers.

  What I call urbanism, the notion that you design the street, the buildings, transit and the neighbourhood all at the same time—that view of urbanism had no buy-in from city staff tonight.

  That’s right Martha, it ain’t Paris!

  So, is Glissy right? Are we all just wasting our time?

• 64 Joe Just Joe // Feb 28, 2012 at 6:59 am

  Just to correct the above post, Kingsway and Clark (note no E) is not Norquay, it’s Kensington-Cedar Cottage. The Norquay area doesn’t begin until Nanaimo (or Gladstone if going by the city’s planning dept).
  As to the video, it should be up on the city’s website somepoint in the early afternoon.

• 65 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 28, 2012 at 7:54 am

  Thanks Joe. So, what do we call Kingsway & Clark?

• 66 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 28, 2012 at 8:35 am

  I was at the Hearing from start to finish and I would like to comment in an eloquent way, but the best way to describe it is quite simply Citizens 1 – City 0.

  Talk about back pedaling from the City Planners and Acton Ostry Architects Inc. and kudos to the Mt Pleasant citizen Stephen Bohous for rightfully defending his ‘correct and truthful’ rendering of the Development.
  Great to see a large number of citizens against this project show up to support this issue even though they knew they would not get their chance to speak last night.
  Westender1 #53 I couldn’t agree with you more!

• 67 Joe Just Joe // Feb 28, 2012 at 9:33 am

  Lewis #63, it’s in my post #62. The area at Kingsway and Clark is called Kensington/Cedar Cottage. The development is called King Edward Village. A template it is not, thank goodness.

• 68 Jo-Anne Pringle // Feb 28, 2012 at 10:49 am

  It is disappointing when community groups or community people take hostile aim at Frances for either challenging their message or challenging them to consider other input. Frances was also the first media person to cover the work of MARA in Marpole – after she covered us my phone never stopped ringing. Last year we had a meeting with her in my home where she challenged our group to look at our message from the outside. It’s easy to get stuck inside your own bubble – and if we are all calling for fair and balanced input, that means we “community people” must be willing to step back sometimes and consider the input of those who may see things another way. We don’t have to agree with the input, but we should be willing to weigh it objectively.

• 69 George // Feb 28, 2012 at 10:55 am

  Lewis N Villegas..@61

  This comment should be read at the public hearing..what a brilliant comment..if it wasn’t plagiarism…I would borrow this..

• 70 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 28, 2012 at 11:27 am

  Borrow it, George! Use it. What the internet has given us is the ability to share information.

• 71 Guest // Feb 28, 2012 at 11:35 am

  WRT shopping streets and traffic arteries –
  the two don’t mix well.

  That’s why Vancouver’s main shopping street is Robson St., not Georgia St. or Burrard St..

  And why in Burnaby at Brentwood, the shopping street is designated to be Dawson St., not Lougheed Highway.

  That’s also why Richmond’s goal of humanizing No. 3 Rd. seems misplaced – why not Hazelbridge Way?

  West Broadway (around MacDonald) or 41st in Kerrisdale may be exceptions, but outside of rush hour, they are actually fairly moderate in traffic volumes because they don’t connect to other cities (like Kingsway or Lougheed do).

• 72 Terry M // Feb 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm

  Lewis #61
  Excellent comment!

  George #67
  Great idea!
  I would go even further … I would use one of Glissy’s comments as well especially the obvious one seconded by Morry #26 and Higgins#52:

  Back to Lewis #61
  “So, is Glissy right? Are we all just wasting our time?”
  I’m afraid so. I wish he was wrong this time, oh well, we’ll see
  Good show last night everyone!
  I’ve stayed until 10:30PM… Back there today @ around 7:00 PM! Let’s show the Vision bunch and their handpicked overpaid bureaucrats some swagger and real community “vision”!

• 73 Andrew // Feb 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm

  Michelle’s criticism of Frances is over the top and totally ridiculous. Uncalled for to say the least.

  What is it with the torch-and-pitchfork brigade that causes them to lapse into shrill attacks on those who, despite not being as extreme in their views, still BASICALLY AGREE!

  Don’t you get it? Frances is expressing the same sentiment you are, except in a reasonable, non-nutter kind of way. This behaviour goes so far to explain the feeling of disengagement felt by community groups – the more extreme you behave, the easier you are to dismiss. You discredit your own cause.

  Think strategically.

• 74 MB // Feb 28, 2012 at 12:51 pm

  After reading the articulate and knowledgeable posting and (mostly) intelligent comments above it’s obvious that we need to rehash once again a recurring theme:

  Neighbourhood Urban Design Workshops.

  Too many people Rize to fight again and again and again the single devlopment in what amounts to a waste of valuable personal time and energy, to focus streams of negativity and protest at developers and city hall, only to be forgotten when said development gets approved (with a few tweaks) , built and grudgingly accepted over the decades.

  The planning process for Mt Pleasant seemed like a good start, but it’s obvious it should’ve evolved into a full-scale series of charrettes with far more depth in its mandate. This is the only way city officials can work directly with citizens to define common development goals in a largely non-adversarial way.

  Take developers out of the process, but invite design and planning professionals to help articulate graphically the ACTUAL density, height, massing, zoning, and public asset treatment (e.g. streetscapes, social housing, locales for public art, etc.), and where exactly the neighbourhood trade offs would allow flexibility. Best of all, mandate the update of the resulting Neighbourhood Urban Design Plan every 10 years with a new set of workshops.

  Then have developers conform after-the-fact to what will be a more certain developmental realm with defined limitations and flexibility with “pre-approved” neighbourhood guidelines.

  I see Rize as only one development of potentially hundreds in future that will come before different council majorities and on a shrinking available land base.

  Why set them up for wasteful, reactionary and hardly consensus-building opposition? Why offer the press so much drama?

• 75 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 28, 2012 at 1:32 pm

  Andrew #71

  I think you meant to refer to someone else not Michelle….I would suggest proof reading your comments before sending them out as I never criticised Francis in any of my comments……

• 76 Silly Season // Feb 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm

  @MB #72 Hurrah!

• 77 Mira // Feb 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm

  MB @72
  “Too many people Rize to fight again and again and again the single devlopment in what amounts to a waste of valuable personal time and energy, to focus streams of negativity and protest at developers and city hall, only to be forgotten when said development gets approved (with a few tweaks) , built and grudgingly accepted over the decades.”
  Get out of town darling, are you for real?
  Anything that’s built by force, forced down on one’s neighborhood throat, will be accepted in the end… what are we anarchists? Molotov cocktail arsonists? No.
  Of course it will be there a long time… just like Glissando Remmy said in his opening post @1, and specifically what the members of the “damage’ committee are going to be doing after the dust is settled over their term in office.
  “Once a 20 stories building is up, it’s going to stay up for generations to come. And it will stay there as a sour puss in the neighborhood, long time after the poli-crooks have retired to their isolated, low density, architecturally shacked, Island of Cortes.”
  Who are we? Who-Are-We?
  Moms, and dads, and grandparents, that want their neighborhood to be just like… Robertson wants his to be… no double standards, OK?

  Everyman @23
  “And to those arguing for the tower, I’d like to ask who you think you are, that your opinion should matter compared to those who actually live in the neighbourhood?”
  I completely agree!
  Frances,
  I want to echo what Joe Just Joe saaid @40
  “I’m curious Frances, as a resident not a journalist what is your opinion on the development? ”
  Well?

• 78 Mira // Feb 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm

  One more thing MB @72
  read Glissy’s metaphor @25
  “Wouldn’t have been better if the whole process started with the end? Take the council’s naivete on ‘white’, with mayo provided by the City Planners, sprinkle neighborhood input and spices and then… go for a good sandwich developer, to put it all together for you!?
  As it stands right now, the sandwich developer serves you whatever they want you to have on… ‘white’!”
  Essentially what you just insinuated in your post and said it won’t work. Speaking on developer’s behalf MB? Or City’s?
  There is no long term master plan for any community. Not on paper and not in reality.
  The developer who funds whoever wins the majority in Council identifies the site, and then develops it for profit. Period.
  What vision? Manure, my friend. Ma-nure!

  I agree with you on one point: “Why set them up for wasteful, reactionary and hardly consensus-building opposition? Why offer the press so much drama?”
  It’s all a waste of time. But you already knew that, right?

• 79 Mira // Feb 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm

  Here’s a great comment from Victor on February 28, 2012 at 12:33 am – Reply
  http://citycaucus.com/2012/02/name-callers-nimbys-and-the-need-for-more-balanced-dialogue/#comments

  “Who are we designing this City for anyway – the current residents and their families or some dreamed up statistic who might appear in the future?

  While we are at it…..Is it necessary to build such monstrosities? How about some wonderful iconic buildings instead of drab, dull glass blocks?”

  EXACTLY Victor!
  Who are we designing this City for anyway?
  Not for us, that’s for sure!

• 80 MB // Feb 28, 2012 at 3:37 pm

  @ Mira #77: “Get out of town darling, are you for real? … Anything that’s built by force, forced down on one’s neighborhood throat, will be accepted in the end… what are we anarchists? Molotov cocktail arsonists? No.”

  Thank you for making my point. There’s a better way, and that’s consensus-building through community workshops.

• 81 rf // Feb 28, 2012 at 3:40 pm

  couple of things…..

  Is this not one block from the infamous retail hotspot that includes John Jukes arcade store, a tattoo parlour, and the Kitten (of is it Fox) porno Movie theatre?

  This is a major transit arterial. Density is a must. Below broadway it’s already been a hot spot for young people to move into affordable (albeit small) first-time buyer apartments. A decent house around there is going to pushing a million. I find it a little rich to be against a chunk of density.

  The 12/Kingway project was a home run. This thing is just a couple of blocks away and a similar design. Gimme a break on it not fitting the community.

  Is this even Mt. Pleasant?! Personally I think of Mt. Pleasant as being north of Broadway.

  To say the building doesn’t fit with anything else in the neighborhood is a pretty poor argument.
  Most of the buildings in this area are completely out of date and rotting away (or occupied by pinball stores and porn theatres). It a’int Yaletown. This isn’t stuff you preserve. Do you put collector plates on a 1975 Honda Civic?

  And of course, albeit a cliche, it’s all about Nimbyism. Why do these mt. pleasant residents act like they own this corner, and that they are entitled to services and community contributions? We should be thankful that the city gets $6.25mil. Half the residents of Mt. Pleasant have one the real estate lottery in the last 5 years. They buy a place for $300k and now it’s worth a mil. They don’t want to pay more in property taxes, but you want to tell a developer to build them a community centre.

  Get over yourselves.

  This neighborhood redevelopment has to start somewhere. The surrounding retail is old, cheap, and hardly ‘character’ (unless the character is Forrest Hump, headining at the Fox theatre).

• 82 MB // Feb 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm

  @ Mira #78: “Speaking on developer’s behalf MB? Or City’s?”

  I’m on the neighbourhood’s side, Mira.

  And I’m not interested in scoring political points against this or that or the in between party. Other than the hard left, they are much the same and will change, but the development pressures remain the same.

  Nor am I interested in blasting developers.

  Yo need to reread my post.

• 83 MB // Feb 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm

  Oh, and Mira, I live in the neighbourhood.

• 84 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 28, 2012 at 3:53 pm

  Hey rf #81 the reason that those buildings are dilapitated is because no one can afford to restore them, they are all too busy trying to figure out how to keep that roof over their head in a city that is grossly over expensive to live in with no justifiable reason as to why.

  Focus on the real picture that Mt Pleasant has been meeting it’s density quota and that we have ALOT of available real estate for sale and if you don’t like the look and feel of our area then go and live in Yaletown!

• 85 Stephanie // Feb 28, 2012 at 5:36 pm

  Forgive me — I can’t stop laughing at being lectured about “nimbyism” by a person who thinks a pinball store is “infamous retail”.

• 86 D. Samis // Feb 28, 2012 at 8:16 pm

  rf, I believe there’s a classic photo by Frank Hertzog of that barber shop some 50 years ago. Not heritage?

  Compare the $12 price for a haircut there with Gastown’s new “faux” barber shop, complete with shiny new striped barber pole, 1/2 block from Woodwards on Abbot. A staggering $25 for a cut.

  That’s a 100+% mark-up for the exact same service.

  A harbinger, perhaps?

• 87 voony // Feb 28, 2012 at 10:12 pm

  Lewis @61 :

  
  Main 99 feet (86 feet south of 20th or so)
  Broadway 99 feet
  Kingsway 99 feet
  Watson 33 feet

  At a 1 : 3 aspect ratio, buildings fronting Broadway, Kingsway, and Main should be 33-feet tall. 11 feet, or one storey fronting Watson.
  
  I have read your very interesting and well educated piece on the 6 metric of good urbanism…and you will find me in general agreement with the “metric”,
  for the measure 1 : 3 aspect ratio it is something else…

  You know Paris enough to show it as a good example of urbanism: I will remind that in Paris, the ratio is around 1:1 + 1 or 2 storey…don’t forget that that is for the facade only, the roof can go higher (Paris has gabarit for it: that gives the so-called the Mansard!)
  for narrow streets, Paris has flooring :
  you will probably now, rue des Mouffetard (7m wide), may be also “rue Quincampoix” – 10m wide, – and you will see an inviting street…and lined by tall building higher than what the Rize propose for Watson street.

  Nowadays, building limit is usually 37 meters high in Paris: here you will see what that means on a 40 meter wide avenue:
  http://voony.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/a-viaduct-in-paris/
  (notice the tower in the forefront).

  I believe that in this affair, people focus too much on height…the project has some flaw but the height is not that much of a problem…

  * the facade on Broadway is maybe a storey too high-it should be inline with lee building-but the overall height of the building is not that much of a problem (providing the receding 2 top storeys is deep enough)
  * The lack of family friendly apartment is another problem in my opinion: the apartment at the courtyard level should be 3 bedrooms -or 2bedroom + ensuite one- 80 sqm+, so the building on East and West frontage should be thicker to accept the additional space (that could increase the FSR without increasing height)…

  
  Scot also explained how the City staff view Kingsway as a route composed of four “urban villages”. The Rise at Mount Pleasant, something else, then Norquay at Clark, then one more.

  As far as urban design that is grounded on the human experience of place… I saw nothing.

  We see nothing today, but you could also explain that a 5km long avenue is not human scale, no matter how high, or low, the building lining are…You need to provide some rhythm to the avenue…I guess that is the reasoning beyng those identified “tent pole” spot.

• 88 voony // Feb 28, 2012 at 10:38 pm

  Guest@71
  WRT shopping streets and traffic arteries –
  the two don’t mix well.

  What about Champs Elysees Paris ?
  traffic here? 85,000 cars/days…

  Traffic is not necessarily an issue, and could be even a requirement for a place to success -
  Could it be that Robson is successful as a shopping street because there is a fair level of congestion- understand activities here ?

  Could it be than “traffic” is also creating value , that is the point done -by some-here:
  http://voony.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/an-avenue-in-neuilly/

• 89 Andrew // Feb 28, 2012 at 10:45 pm

  @ # 75 (Michelle)

  You’re totally right, really sorry! I meant to refer to the poster above named Melissa. Brain fart. Sorry!

• 90 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 29, 2012 at 1:12 am

  voony @ 87

  I’m thinking in terms of of Sebastopol, Blvd. Saint-Germain, the really heavy arteries. And, then, only from memory. I have not done an aspect ratio study on the (famous) Paris boulevards.

  I think that everyone remembers Paris for being grand, and they are thinking about the areas centred on Ile de la Cite, but they forget that it is almost unwalkable. Give up that ‘carnet’ and you are lost.

  We should, however, stress one thing about the Paris maisonette. It was designed so that it could be built incrementally by many different builders. It looks like a big building. But in fact it is made up of many different—and coded—parts.

• 91 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 29, 2012 at 1:21 am

  The text from my presentation to the Public Hearing here:

  http://wp.me/p1mj4z-Bc

• 92 rf // Feb 29, 2012 at 7:24 am

  @85 Stephanie:
  Uh….earth to Stephanie….I really don’t think that my sarcasm about the heritage of the site was particularly ‘cloaked’.

  You seriously read my comment and thought, “Oh my god! This idiot wants to call me a nimby…and he thinks a pinball store is ‘infamous’ retail!!! Rotfl. What a moron!”

  Really, that’s how you read it?

  And D.Samis’s (@86) argument is that this spot is historic because Frank Hertzog (by the way, it’s “Fred Herzog”, Msr. Heritage Professor) took a picture of it? Is there anything in Vancouver that he didn’t take a picture of?!!!!
  Part of the allure of his photos is that most of the features don’t exist anymore!

  And your other argument is that it should change because you can get a cheap haircut there? Seriously?!!!!

• 93 rf // Feb 29, 2012 at 7:35 am

  correction, it “shouldn’t” change because you can get a cheap haircut there?

• 94 Rick // Feb 29, 2012 at 9:56 am

  Being a potential next door neighbour of this proposal, I will say that Frances’ writing is very fair.
  I do not blame the developer for this proposal, they are playing their game, however, we don’t live in America, where the expectation is that the free market will provide social conscience to these entities, apparently either through the application of copious amounts of pixie dust, or the intervention of a particularly hands on deity. Though frankly, if most of us had a similar opportunity to make gazillions of dollars through what we believe to be progress, it would be a very safe bet to postulate that few of us would think from a social conscience basis either.
  In Canada, on the other hand, we have decided that one of the functions on government it to protect and promote the values and beliefs of the polis,unfortunately, we’ve come to believe that elections are the mechanism for this as opposed to a participartory democracy. But if I had to only pay attention to you once every few years, and count on the forgetfulness of your long-term memory, you can well imagine how well that relationship would work out.
  Having worked with Vancouver’s planning and engineering departments on many projects over the years, I can say that I am completely stunned by the way they approach things. They have a singularly hands off approach with regards to the big picture issues of urbanism at the expense of formulaic solutions. I was in a meeting with a previous Director of Planning, where it was stated in regards to a project at the time “I don’t care what the retail is, so long as there’s ground floor retail everywhere” – and unfortunately, this attitude has trickled down to the rank and file. I however am on the side that firmly believes that great architecture and urbanism comes from the singularity of every problem, and often you have to try something that no one else has before, because that’s how these principles are arrived at in the first place – you try stuff, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t – and you can learn from both.
  With regards to Mount Pleasant, Planning seems to be approaching things as if this was a game of Monopoly where $$ equals density, as opposed to what they should be doing, and are in the unique position to have direct knowledge of, which is the CAPACITY of various blocks, neighbourhoods, development sites, etc. to support density based upon the existing infrastructure of the city, or what can potentially be augmented. With this information, they should then be going to the neighbourhoods and saying, here’s what we CAN do, and will eventually happen, what do you think we SHOULD do, and how do you think we should get there?
  This is where this project fails, the infrastructure pinch point is the streets around the development, they do not have the capacity for the additional users, whether or not anything else does or does not work.

• 95 MB // Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 am

  @ Rick, excellent comments, especially …..

  “…they should then be going to the neighbourhoods and saying, here’s what we CAN do, and will eventually happen, what do you think we SHOULD do, and how do you think we should get there?”

• 96 rf // Feb 29, 2012 at 11:25 am

  Sincerely, Rick, the jab at “America” is pretty empty….and even a little ignorant.

  Canada does not have a monopoly on city planning wisdom and social concience.

  Some of the greatest planned cities are in the US. New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, Portland are amazing examples of urban planning and community influence.
  The preservation of the historic buildings in the Boston and New York is breathtaking.
  The Miracle Mile in Chicago has stood the test of developement and time.

  Some of the greatest Urban Planning think tanks and thinkiers in the world are at American Universities.

  So get of the Canada High Horse. One really lowers the conversation when they start by throwing unsupported nationalist jingoism at it.

  Suggesting that “America”, as a whole, doesn’t have a concience?!!! Give me a break.

• 97 Rick // Feb 29, 2012 at 11:52 am

  RF. You seem to need to see the trees at the expense of the forest, but you have made my point. Each of those cities you cite were urban planning exercises in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and in a lot of cases, planning that existed before there was an urbanity. I totally agree, planning can be done well, but we do not have a viable model for it being used in this city, or so it would appear.
  Mount Pleasant is about the insertion of elements into an existing fabric, I would hope we had learned from the failures of the late 20th century, but I grow less convinced. I have designed buildings in Portland, and their process is exactly the one I have cited, and would have alleviated much of what has happened, and will continue to happen as the “easy” sites in Vancouver disappear.

• 98 rf // Feb 29, 2012 at 12:08 pm

  @ Rick….
  but if you are so pleased with Portland, why slam “America”.

  “Mount Pleasant is about the insertion of elements into an existing fabric”

  -I can’t resist the sophmoric response….
  I don’t want to know about some of the elements inserted into the fabric of some of the buildings in that area! Shining a black light on it would give one a pretty good idea though…

• 99 KY // Feb 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm

  I signed the pro-Rize petition. I don’t want to buy into a huge ugly tower myself but I have no objection to other people doing so in the neighbourhood. At least they are going to be buying into this tower, whereas in another nearby tower at Fraser and Broadway, they will be dropped in as theoretically recovering addicts. I see a beautiful yin/yang balance things there, don’t you?

• 100 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 29, 2012 at 12:56 pm

  Andrew @ 89

  Apology accepted !

• 101 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 29, 2012 at 12:58 pm

  Lewis N. Villegas @ 91

  Brilliant speech, compelling argument and information.

  Sorry I missed it, will watch video of last night proceedings to catch it as I had to leave after my speech unfortunatley.

  Back for round 3 this Thursday!

• 102 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 29, 2012 at 1:03 pm

  Voony @ 88

  You are missing the point, that volume of traffic in this community is not what the community wants.

  In as much as I love Mt Pleasant the Champs Elysees it is not, there is alot more history behind that area and is a tourist mecca so it thrives on volume.

• 103 rf // Feb 29, 2012 at 1:15 pm

  @ Michelle 101

  “In as much as I love Mt Pleasant the Champs Elysees it is not”

  It’s “Main” street!!!!.

  Main Street is going to have some traffic. “Broadway” is going to have some traffic. Saying traffic is not what you want is akin to people moving next to Airport Road and not wanting air traffic.

  The corner of “Tranquil” and “Peaceful” street it is not.

• 104 D. Samis // Feb 29, 2012 at 2:50 pm

  rf, thanks for the spelling correction, much appreciated!

  As to your dismissal of my other point, well, I suppose if you are wealthy enough to not blink when the commercial rents skyrocket around the Rize, as they did around the Woodwards towers, and are happy paying up to 100% more for local goods and services like haircuts, then you have nothing to worry about. Personally, I am not so wealthy, so it is a big concern to me.

• 105 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Feb 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm

  rf @ 103

  Duh, of course we are going to have traffic as our community grows, but the transportation infrastructure needs to be developed first before Development moves in, its called ‘proper planning’ and something our City has failed to observe and impliment.

Leave a Comment