39 responses so far ↓

• 1 Don // Nov 6, 2010 at 7:16 pm

  Another privileged West-side neighbourhood that’s unwilling to take on its share of future population growth…

• 2 Julia // Nov 7, 2010 at 11:19 am

  I fail to see how adding residential density without the supporting amenities (read grocery store, dry cleaners, upgraded community center etc.) helps everyone get or stay out of their car and forward the ultimate goal of this exercise.

  Sticking in extra housing and calling it a day is not the way to go.

• 3 Joe Just Joe // Nov 7, 2010 at 7:41 pm

  The proposal by Larco is actually very thought out but I don’t think it will matter to the nimbies. It will certainly be interesting to see how the westside unites against it and Shannon Mews. I don’t think they will be very successful though.

• 4 gasp // Nov 8, 2010 at 3:43 am

  “. . . another privileged West-side neighbourhood that’s unwilling to take on its share of future propulation growth. . . ”

  Arbutus Ridge is more densely populated than either Dunbar or Kerrisdale, yet it has virtually no commercial space and no amenities.

  Since Arbutus Ridge wasn’t developed until after the 1940′s, most of the density that has been added on the West side since that time has been in Arbutus Ridge.

  Within 500 meters of the existing Arbutus Village shopping centre there are already about 1500 housing units, and it is the only area in the entire City that has every type of housing possible, including over 800 condos, over 400 apartments, two seniors’ independent living facilities, an assisted living facility and an extended care facility.

  By converting this shopping centre into yet another condo development, all the people currently living in that area will have to travel to someone else’s neighbourhood to shop or to work. NOT a very “green” solution.

  The West side of Vancouver generally has very little commercial space. Densifying this area without providing adequate shops, services, jobs and amenities is folly, not good planning!
  Yet all over the West side, commercial space is being converted to residential, forcing more and more people into their cars to conduct their daily activities.

• 5 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 8, 2010 at 5:50 am

  Arbutus is home to a rare element in urbanism: a feral railway right-of-way. With the return of LRT to that corridor (that has a working bridge across the Fraser) we might have a new “Silent Running”.

  But, as we have been saying here, the neighbours should stand for their right to shape all the decisions that will affect the resulting quality of their neighbourhood spaces and places.

  This business of standing at midnight to read 500-words to Council after the horse is out of the barn, and the decisions have all been made just won’t hunt.

  One suggestion: don’t plan 7 acres at a time. Ask for an urban code for the entire neighbourhood. Use the proceeds from new development to pay for a charrette-driven process. That’s the only guarantee of local control over the development process that we have today.

  At the scale of the quartier, the local people should be “the deciders”, and Council and staff should be the “facilitators”.

• 6 Morven // Nov 8, 2010 at 8:38 am

  Lewis Villegas # 5

  The Arbutus Village development reflects much that is both welcome and unwelcome in the city planning process.

  For one, the local Vision process (ARKS) has a set of desired outcomes in which many residents worked hard to achieve consensus over a three year period about seven years ago.

  Two, the proposed development does not match the VISION guidelines. In this case, the developer (LARCO) has seemingly worked hard over a long period to try to achieve some sort of community consensus with their design. That said, the long process of developer/city community consultation has not met with general acceptance (so far).

  As far as I can tell, the VISION process that at one time was a jewel in the city planning process is inept when it comes to densification and rezoning.
  -30-

• 7 Jake // Nov 8, 2010 at 10:02 am

  Gasp – “The West side of Vancouver generally has very little commercial space. Densifying this area without providing adequate shops, services, jobs and amenities is folly, not good planning!
  Yet all over the West side, commercial space is being converted to residential, forcing more and more people into their cars to conduct their daily activities.”

  Apparently you avoid West 41st, Arbutus to the north and south of Arbutus Village, West Broadway, West 10th, West 4th, Alma and every other arterial on the West Side that is comprised of vast stretches of commercial space or, gasp, residential condos and rentals above commercial space.

• 8 The Fourth Horseman // Nov 8, 2010 at 1:52 pm

  The last iteration I saw of this project looked like a tiered bunker. Clearly not enough services–and no neighborhood feel. Another veal fattening pen, to coin a well used phrase, all about stacking people in as thick as one possibly can.

  Bus service is not good here along the corridor, either, the # 16 running rather erratically. Bit of a problem for those older folks who would like to stay in the hood, but find it inconvenient to cross 33rd and walk UPHILL on Arbutus to West 41st.

  Of course, those renters in the neighbourhood should just call their chauffeurs, n’est ce pas, Jake?

• 9 The Fourth Horseman // Nov 8, 2010 at 1:54 pm

  PS Doreen Braverman is a well-known, well organized fed Liberal fundraiser.

  . I wonder if that has VV worried?

• 10 Ron // Nov 8, 2010 at 3:15 pm

  The Arbutus Right of Way will be used for a streetcar or LRT in future.

  To all those that decry that you need density BEFORE building a rapid transit line – That’s what they are doing.

• 11 gasp // Nov 8, 2010 at 10:52 pm

  @Jake

  I suggest you look at the City’s own statistics on the amount of commercial and residential space (i.e., percentage and number of acres) across the City, and in each neighbourhood. You will see for yourself that the West side is poorly serviced. The commercial areas that you mentioned were those that were developed before the 1940′s, and before the automobile became the main form of transportation.

  After the 1940′s, most of the commercial space developed in Vancouver was in small neighbourhood malls, rather than along arterial streets. Taking away these commercial malls to build condos means more people driving the arterials looking for parking etc., etc. Plus, the commercial malls serve the needs of the elderly and disabled, who usually travel by private vehicle or handydart, much better than do shops along arterial streets.

  Maps of the City’s development show that the Arbutus Village shopping centre was in the centre of 4 square miles of residential land. Shaughnessy, to the east of Arbutus Ridge, has NO commercial space. There are plenty of locations in this area to build more residential accommodation on the West side, but no other locations in the area suitable for commercial premises. Since the bus service on Arbutus is, at best, inconsistent, and the hills surrounding the Arbutus Village are steep, most people living in that area have to rely on their car to get to the other commercial areas you mentioned – meaning MORE vehicle traffic throughout the City.

  @Ron

  It will be 30-50 years before anything runs on the old interurban line, so don’t hold your breath waiting for it.

  First, the property is still owned by the CPR, and they are in no hurry to sell it or to sell it at firesale prices. Why should they – they’ve owned it for over 100 years already!

  (For those unaware of Vancouver’s history, the CPR land grant for bringing the railway into Vancouver included all land between Ontario Street on the east and Trafalgar Street on the west from False Creek to the Fraser River).

  Second, the entire rail line would have to be redone. The old interurban stopped running 40 years ago, and the track is unusable in many locations. It cost the City $8 million to redo 1 mile of track for the Olympics – how much would the entire Arbutus line track cost and where would this money come from?

  Third, the provincial government and Translink don’t even have an Arbutus LRT line on the radar. The closest they come is building the Broadway line as far as Arbutus – AFTER the Evergreen line, and AFTER Surrey/Langley transit improvements. A line to UBC probably won’t even be built for the next 20 years.

  Fourth, the area of Arbutus Ridge that is the most densified is the area surrounding Arbutus Street from King Edward to 33rd Ave. This entire area is downhill (down a very steep hill) from the old interurban line. It would be a one mile uphill trek to get to the nearest potential station locations – at King Edward and Arbutus or at 33rd and Arbutus. Since most of the residents in this area are seniors (it WAS developed as a seniors’ area), many with mobility issues, it’s ridiculous to expect them to crawl up the hills with their walkers or canes in order to get the (nonexistent) LRT line – or to claim that this line will somehow meet the transit needs of the people in that area.

  If the plan is to densify Arbutus to justify an LRT, then do it in the areas where Arbutus and the rail line are at the same level – not where the rail line is a mile uphill away. The areas that should be densified include Arbutus between 16th and 25th and from 37th to 49th along the Boulevard. Also, until a LRT runs, the City must ensure the existing transit is upgraded and reliable, or densification will just encourage more car users.

• 12 gasp // Nov 8, 2010 at 11:00 pm

  Correction – fourth point: nearest potential station locations would be King Edward at about 100 meters east of Arbutus (near Maple Cres.) or at 33rd and Pine St. The line is uphill and about 500 meters east of Arbutus at this point.

• 13 The Fourth Horseman // Nov 9, 2010 at 3:34 am

  Gasp,

  Re: the uphill trek up Arbutus for seniors.

  My point exactly. Thanks for fleshing it out.

• 14 The Fourth Horseman // Nov 9, 2010 at 3:58 am

  The Arbutus Line and immediate surrounding lands is of course owned by CP Rail, the ultimate chip holder in this whole equation.

  I would not say that the Arbutus Corridor is bot on TransLibk”s radar—it will take some fancy negotiating at multi-governmental levels to open up the possibilities therem

  Gasp, absoutely, since the line is in place, well west of Arbutus, street level stations would make the only sensem

  Multi-res (including rental?) along Cypress Street (bike path) anyone?

  

• 15 Morven // Nov 9, 2010 at 7:52 am

  As I understand the matter, the Vancouver cycling coalition want the Arbutus line to be a cycling lane connecting downtown Vancouver with Richmond.

  And in case you forget, Vancouver has planning authority over the line, not CP or the VCC.
  -30-

• 16 The Fourth Horseman // Nov 9, 2010 at 8:18 am

  #14

  Wow, the cold in my head has translated to my fingers!

  * not, replaces bot
  * TransLink as per usual
  * there, replacing therem

  Note to self: no more Patron Anejo shots before commenting…

• 17 The Fourth Horseman // Nov 9, 2010 at 8:20 am

  Morven,

  Vancouver may have “authority” over the line, but since CN owns the property, it is a moot point. At this time.

  Keep watching that space!

• 18 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 9, 2010 at 8:48 am

  Let’s spend some time dissecting a vision process from seven years ago:

  “…the local Vision process (ARKS) has a set of desired outcomes in which many residents worked hard to achieve consensus over a three year period about seven years ago…”

  Morven 6

  The three year time span is interesting. In charrette-driven planning that relies on urban design to shape neighbourhood visions, that time line is compressed. That’s important because back then the impression at City Hall was that “we can’t do charrettes because charrettes cost too much”.

  Unfortunately that underscores a lack of understanding. The charrette is just the most publicly visible part of the urban design process, and thus gets all the attention. Behind the scenes, building the consensus vision happens one day at a time, through a lot of meetings and stake holder outreach.

  However, the charrette does have one advantage. In the hot spotlight of attention, and having all the various departments involved at the same time, it is sometimes possible to get concessions that are otherwise “not on”.

  “West 41st, Arbutus to the north and south of Arbutus Village, West Broadway, West 10th, West 4th, Alma and every other arterial on the West Side that is comprised of vast stretches of commercial space or, gasp, residential condos and rentals above commercial space.”

  Jake 7

  Good manners not to make “you” statements. Let’s state facts as we know them.

  The residential over commercial as arterial fronting conditions is the default position in Vancouver today. That is unfortunate, because single-aspect apartment units fronting an arterial is not acceptable (single aspect=all windows, daylight, ventilation comes from one direction. Typically “double loaded corridors” access units facing the street on one side, and the lane on the other).

  The second problem is that the neighbourhood vision avoided the responsibility of re-designing the arterial.

  The revitalization of our public rights of way is another key component of the paradigm shift. We will not achieve neighbourhood social space without it.

  “…problem for those older folks who would like to stay in the hood, but find it inconvenient to cross 33rd and walk UPHILL on Arbutus to West 41st.”

  Hosemean 8

  Just looks better when we stick to the facts. Reporting problems crossing our arterials? Really?

  Pedestrian crossing distances in excess of 22 feet (2 lanes) are a problem. We don’t need a 3 year process to identify that.

  Another problem is that the vision probably did not break “Arbutus” down into a series of “quartiers”. Without taking into account human scale on the ground, all of TFH’s points will go unanswered.

  “The Arbutus Right of Way will be used for a streetcar or LRT in future. To all those that decry that you need density BEFORE building a rapid transit line – That’s what they are doing.”

  Ron 10

  Second one first… The new paradigm takes transportation, intensification and R.O.W. revitalization and deals with them all at the same time, along with a whole bunch of other concrete and verifiable measures of “good” urbanism.

  Doing density before transit is just as bad as doing transit before density. There is any number of ways of not getting it right.

  On the first point, how does LRT on the rail ROW shape future quartiers all along the corridor?

  We don’t know.

  “I suggest you look at the City’s own statistics on the amount of commercial and residential space (i.e., percentage and number of acres) across the City, and in each neighbourhood. You will see for yourself that the West side is poorly serviced…”

  gasp 11

  If all this “yoo-ing” rubs off on me, my kid’s upbringing will suffer.

  If we design arterial fronting building types that are flexible on the ground floor, the level of commercial service can be set by the market place.

  “It will be 30-50 years before anything runs on the old interurban line, so don’t hold your breath waiting for it.

  First, the property is still owned by the CPR, and they are in no hurry to sell it or to sell it at firesale prices. ”

  gasp 11

  I… can’t… type… gotta… breathe… not… waiting… LRT… on … interurban… now….

  That thing was in court a while ago. Anybody have any news? IF we can’t, then we can run the LRT on Arbutus. The CPR is run for profit. I wonder if they would horse trade?

  More profit if they let go. Less profit if they hang on.

• 19 Bill McCreery // Nov 9, 2010 at 9:49 am

  @ Don & Joe. This is not an east / west side issue, as very few are unless someone resorts to ‘divide & rule politics. One of the issues here is that we now have a Council who has announced to the world that they will entertain spot rezoning proposals & we have a planning department that is letting the developers do the planning. This bulked up PROPOSAL, when examined, is all about wringing the last drop of development potential out of a site in an already densified neighbourhood very poorly served by transit while giving virtually nothing back to the community – a Safeway & liquor store don’t make the cut. The City [Planing & Council in consultation with the community should be setting the stage, the developers are the actors, not the other way round].

• 20 MB // Nov 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm

  @ Lewis 18: “If we design arterial fronting building types that are flexible on the ground floor, the level of commercial service can be set by the market place.”
  ===============

  I would suggest the same for the second storey fronting the arterials as well. There may well be a market for non-ground-accessed, non-storefront office space.

  And what’s to stop a second floor office space from being owned by the strata and leased out, with the net revenue used only to keep maintenance fees and other operating costs per owner lower? This and lowering the underground parking requirement on transit routes may be innovative ways to make the housing more affordable.

  Also, the design of the building could allow shorter, stacked “loft” like flats where the double-loaded corridor running the length of the centre of the building is a wider (and possible covered) outdoor space, affording the important cross ventilation function.

• 21 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 9, 2010 at 2:06 pm

  Good points MB.

• 22 gasp // Nov 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm

  @Lewis – 18:

  The City won the court case at the Supreme Court of Canada, but that was the end of it.

  The City could try to purchase the land from CP IF the price was right. The last I heard it was valued at about $200 million.

  But then CP said it wasn’t quite that easy – the corridor is still under federal jurisdiction as a railway right of way. . . .

  And so on it goes.

• 23 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 9, 2010 at 4:24 pm

  gasp

  So, it would be interesting to do a “light” plan to see what the redevelopment opportunities are. Test it with the stakeholders, and then when Ron or Translink are ready to implement, see if the redevelopment revenues could cover a bond for the price of purchase… say 200 million.

  In the meantime, we should design as if the corridor operational. BRT on Arbutus would not support significantly different development patterns from LRT 150-feet away.

• 24 Shane // Nov 9, 2010 at 11:45 pm

  Creme de la creme….who said that again?

• 25 voony // Nov 10, 2010 at 12:18 am

  I understand that some here prefer a 70′s era strip mall on Arbutus where you can drive in front of the store, to another retail form, more pedestrian oriented (where you could need to park the car underground, and so walk a bit)…
  but to say like Bill, that the “neighbourhood [is] very poorly served by transit” is may be a bit of an exaggeration:
  trolley #16 could be considered as a transit dream by many, and frequency of bus 25 connecting to Canada line in less than 10mn is every 7-8mn (+ strong LRT upgrade potential)
  not sure what is expected to qualify for a “good transit”, and when Arbutus and King Edward is qualified as “very poorly served by transit”, I am curious to know which term could apply for the township of Langley ?

• 26 Michael Geller // Nov 10, 2010 at 8:35 am

  As a former advisor to Larco on this redevelopment, I am astounded at the mis-information and some of the opinions expressed on this post.

  Firstly, unless the proposal has changed dramatically since I was involved, there is no intention to replace retail with housing. Rather, the intention is to retain the food store, liquor store, neighbourhood retail (dry cleaners, restaraurant, etc) and professional offices and ADD housing above, and around the commercial space. The retail will be transformed from a very uncomfortable ‘mall experience’ to a more pleasant street oriented retail.

  The architects are Dialogue (formerly Hotson Bakker et al) who were the architects and planners for Granville Island. I was involved with their selection and thought they were a good choice because of their ability to create a pleasant shopping environment.

  The residential densities are much highert than the current zoning, but modest compared to some of the new projects around the city. In my opinion, they are quite appropriate. The building form is terraced mid-rise, rather than high rise, to relate to the nearby buildings.

  I have not seen the latest plans, but if they look like a bunker,then they should be modified, since the developer’s intention has always been to create something attractive that will appeal to residents of the area. I understand there is a mix of housing types and sizes.

  So why the objection to all of this? Why doesn’t it fit with the ‘vision’? Because the ‘VISION’ ESSENTIALLY EXCLUDED ANY HOUSING on this large parking area. The vision is absolutely wrong, and those who support it are wrong.

  If you can’t add well designed housing to a large parking lot in the middle of an established area, on an arterial road, where should you add housing?

  As for those concerned about ‘spot rezoning’, it should be noted that this proposal did go through a comprehensive two stage planning process, establishing a policy framework to serve as the basis for the subsequent rezoning application.

  While I like many of the people who are opposed to this development, they should realize that this is precisely the type of redevelopment that should be occuring in our city. I just hope that all of the people in the community who support this development, and I know that there are many, will speak up.

  But even if they don’t, it will be a tragedy if this Council would reject this proposal just because hundreds or thousands of people sign a petition against housing on a large parking lot on an arterial road in a part of the city that desperately needs alternative housing choices.

• 27 Albi // Nov 10, 2010 at 10:03 am

  Thank you Michael Geller for clarifying numerous issues. I am a resident of Arbutus Village and, unlike many of my neighbours, I support this project. I shop at the Arbutus Mall often and am surprised at how limited the hours of operation are for many of the stores. Clearly, with the exception of Safeway and the Liquor Store, this mall is not currently servicing the majority of the people in the neighbourhood. Increasing density should improve the economic viability of any business in the area, and hopefully enhance the amenities available to us.

• 28 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 10, 2010 at 10:45 am

  Michael, I think what the people are asking for is good urban design.

  If we are maturing as a community, then this is the tip of the ice burg of folks taking a close look at their neighbourhood, because that’s where they are invested socially, economically & environmentally.

  In that climate, what is good for south Surrey is not good enough for here. That’s not NIMBY, that’s common sense.

  The days of slapping up a big sign that says “Village” and then building Voony’s strip mall are old paradigm.

  Development is going to have to plug in to values of place and learn the new paradigm if it wants to avoid these bruising battles. Municipalities must change their approach in order to be able to offer fast-track administrative approvals, instead of this broken down system of consultation that comes much, much too late and offers too little.

  The market is moving in a new direction. As city design professionals, we too need to embrace the new paradigm.

• 29 Bill McCreery // Nov 10, 2010 at 11:00 am

  Michael, we agree that there can be a residential component to a, also agreed, needed improvement of this property. However, my review of the proposed design indicated there are 4 bulky 6 to 9 storey building masses with little or no setback from the proposed streets. The 9 storey building exceeds the view protection height limit. While the FSR proposed may be “modest compared to some of the new projects around the City” it is 2.95 compared to 0.6 to 1.14 in the neighbourhood. The proposed heights are 6 to 9 storeys while the existing multi-family are 3 to 6. Granted, the buildings do step back on the westerly interfaces.

  A nicely designed, very urban public square is proposed & the existing community space will be more or less replaced, partially below grade.

  However, while the design does not “look like a bunker” it, IMO, is to aggressively bulky for these reasons:

  1] 2.95 vs 1.14 max. is to large a jump in the context of the character of this neighbourhood IMO;

  2] 9 storeys is 3 storeys higher than the highest existing & protrudes 2 storeys beyond the view limit. If you have a view limit, limit the building height period. This reminds me of the recently approved spot rezoned 1304 Hornby 12.44 FSR in a 5.0 zone where the City has rationalized increasing the allowable height to 300′ but, the approved building is 309′. They couldn’t even keep within their own extension. I’d like to see what say 5 to 7 storeys would be.

  3] There are no setbacks from the streets. This works on Arbutus but IMO, is to urban in this neighbourhood context on the others. At least there might be more variation in plan profile as well as section.

  4] While the designers have attempted to soften the edges of this scheme, it remains pretty hard edged, again in the context of the adjacent neighbourhood linear park system & built form character.

  So Michael, while you & I are more often than not concurrent on such matters, we do seem to differ somewhat here. However, I believe the differences to be relative rather than fundamental. I agree, the proposed design is well executed & hope with some gentle massaging & somewhat reduced intensity the final product will still be a positive, thriving focal point for this community.

• 30 Bill McCreery // Nov 10, 2010 at 11:26 am

  @ vroom 22. “#16 could be considered as a transit dream by many, and frequency of #25 connecting to Canada line in less than 10mn is every 7-8mn (+ strong LRT upgrade potential)”.

  You may be more up to date than my own experience when I used #16. I am aware #25 has increased frequency but, it is a bit of a hike uphill from this site, especially for older people. My comment was also made within the context of the objective of getting residents such as those living in the other existing higher density residential enclaves mostly to the south & east of this site & therefore, even further from #25 out of their cars & onto transit. A #33 would be welcome but, requires major street upgrading.

  This exchange highlights another shortcoming in the planning / consultative process. Is there info provided re: the existing & potential transit interface with these developments as well as transits interfaces with adjacent enclaves [if so, I missed it]. There should be so the community can better understand another important ‘fit’ of this proposal. Going through & delineating such things is an important part of a sound decision-making process. It’s not unlike the design process where the very act of physically drawing a larger scale detail makes the designer have to think about what he/she is creating @ a scale where defects become obvious & they can then be made to work.

• 31 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm

  OK let’s look at specifics in urbanism:

  - The project is inward looking. There is no attempt described to reach out and connect with the exiting urban fabric, neighbourhood character, or built form.

  Quoting from the site plan summary:

  - “Extension of city street grid from Arbutus Street, Yew Street, and Nanton breaks the site into a smaller block pattern.”

  This aspect of the platting does work. However the “smaller block pattern” is used to support overcalled buildings, so the gain is quickly given away in the name of FSR.

  “Building forms create garden courts similar to surrounding developments”.

  - The building type seems inappropriate for this area. The garden courts measure between 40 and 70 feet. As we can see at OV that’s too tight.

  “Buildings terrace down in scale to surrounding development”.

  - Seen from the other way around, the development erects a “wall” against the neighbourhood context.

  “Strong streetwall along Arbutus St. [20m or 66 ft]”

  - Arbutus is 66′ R.O.W. 33′ feet is the preferred height. 66′ should be the maximum. That is between 3.5 and 7 storeys. The sections show five storeys plus podium.

  - That’s the maximum, which should only apply in specially designed “urban spines”. What is not explained is why this “strong streetwall” for Arbutus is continued throughout the rest of the project in places not fronting Arbutus.

  “The new east-west “mews” and public square establish public activity spaces for the neighbourhood.”

  - The mews seems not to connect to a destination. I wonder if it has a “street end vista”? For example, terminating in a human-scaled village square.The scale of the mews seems equal to Arbutus and therefore not very mews like. This seems like a repeat of the nasty little street we now have at Kingsway & Night.

  - The Yew Street extension looks good on plan. In section, another story appears. The east streetwall is scaled 1.5 : 1— blocking the morning light and making the place seem like a dark most of the day. The west side streetwall is shown as 1 : 1. That’s the “urban spine” designation, here applied to a rear lane condition.

  - A “human scaled street” would require a 3.5 storey streetwall. That’s exactly 50% of the one shown on the west side; and 36% of the one on the other.

  “Truck servicing is handled with a new east-west lane on the north edge of the site.”

  Lesson from Granville Island not applied here. We can run cement trucks through the neighbourhood, and the neighbourhood is better for not having specially designated “truck service lanes”.

  http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/4255arbutus/documents/sitesections.pdf

  The section shows what I suspect is driving this design: 3 stories structured parking against Arbutus; 2 stories of structured parking in the rear buildings on the east side of Yew extension.

  No serious consideration about transportation being used to reduce parking demand. This is a strip mall redeveloped for sprawling high-rises (of 800 parking spaces, 500 are being reserved for residents).

  There are other things that are very old paradigm in this scheme. The Big Box is buried in the podium; the community space is elevated on the second level (maybe that’s okay?); the sidewalks on Arbutus with stores fronting are not going to end up being the kind of place we wanna sit down and sip a cup.

  The much touted “piazza” is probably the saddest piece of the lot in terms of “good” urbanism. It is surrounded by 7 storey buildings and has an aspect ratio of 1 : 1 in the east-west direction. I’ve been to a lot of village squares in my day. The Piazza di Campo in Sienna is world renown for its urbanism; it has buildings this high along most of its perimeter. But that’s where the comparison ends.

  Measures of architecture performance are not sufficient to address issues in urbanism, gents.

• 32 Michael Geller // Nov 10, 2010 at 5:54 pm

  Lewis….”In that climate, what is good for south Surrey is not good enough for here. That’s not NIMBY, that’s common sense. ”

  Lewis, who is talking South Surrey? This is an unecessarily provocative comment.

  That being said, I think your more detailed urban design analysis is interesting, and hope that Norm Hotson or one of his colleagues will read it and respond. Hopefully you can print it out and send it to him, just in case he’s too busy to read this blog!

  On the broader issue, the one that has got so many people upset….do you Lewis agree that this is a good place to put new residential development, or do you agree with the ARKS vision?

• 33 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 10, 2010 at 7:33 pm

  One component of the South Surrey project I have in mind is called “Granville Corners”. But there are more. Look east as you enter the White Rock exits on the 99 and you will see what I’m making reference to. Big boxes interspersed with—oooh—5 storey product.

  I saw a similar project in San Diego a couple of years ago. This looks very much like “the new formula” being plonked down in Arbutus,

  There is a boxiness to this project that really should be the warning sign.

  http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/4255arbutus/documents/designdrawings.pdf

  My comments here fall under Frances’s remark last summer that in these cases, by the time we get to public review, the investment of time and money by the developer makes it difficult to make changes.

  My intension is to underscore what I see as the new planning—running on urban design—by using these proposals as examples.

  The criticism from the neighbours I see as a sign that there is change in the air. However, I don’t really see the private sector in a position to innovate. They must follow their formulae in order to stay competitive.

  I hope my comments will help people reflect on the difference, for example, between architecture design principles and principles in urbanism; between designing a building or a set of buildings, and designing at the scale of the quartier or neighbourhood as a whole. The former is quite rightly a private sector concern with guidance from the local municipality. But the latter has to be a community initiative first.

  On the broader issue… Residential intensification is the life-blood of the city. Cut that off and give your neighbourhood away. However, it matters a great deal for the resulting quality of the urban character what building types are used.

  I support the resident’s association using whatever means at their disposal to get the City to listen to them. There is no practical reason why we can’t get both good buildings and good urbanism.

  Sorting this one out is left to the grass roots, and to the political process.

  The win for the private sector, the residents, local government, and the economy in general comes from drawing urban codes that set out the neighbourhood vision in detail. With that in place, the approvals process can become an administrative procedure providing more certainty to all parties, and a streamlined approvals process to those choosing to invest in the place.

  Finally, because the urban codes rely on empirical measures of place, getting to consensus should be much quicker than a 3 year process.

• 34 Bill McCreery // Nov 10, 2010 at 8:07 pm

  Well articulated Lewis. To accomplish your goals it will be necessary to reduce the bulk as I noted in 29 above.

• 35 Morven // Nov 10, 2010 at 11:23 pm

  As someone quite familiar with the twists and turns of the Arbutus Village saga, I can only thank the erudite and eminently practical suggestions that have been made by the posters to this theme. I had never before seen a philosophy of urban design expressed quite so succinctly

  In particular the suggestion by Lewis Villegas that the process should combine good urbanism and good buildings should be food for thought for local residents.

  Local residents opposed to the Larco development have relied to a large extent on the ARKS Vision document for guidance. I do not think that the city originators of the VISION process across Vancouver envisaged that community groups would see the guidelines as prescriptive rules to inhibit innovative urban design but that is the net effect. And now that development policies are changing, the VISION process creates friction rather than solutions.

  I hope that ARKS and ARCCA members (local community groups) are reading this blog because they may want to revisit some of their cherished ideas and to be fair, perhaps the developer needs to do the same.

  But the most important part of the Lewis Villegas post (# 33) is the idea that effective urban codes can lead to regulatory efficiency as well as articulating community vision. A simple yet effective idea that the city planners should embrace in practice not just in name.
  -30-

• 36 Bill McCreery // Nov 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm

  Well said Morven. The connections & disconnects you & Lewis are making here are important. I’m hoping there will be an opportunity to fix some of these in the not to distant future. Pls make sure they stay on the agenda.

• 37 Morven // Nov 12, 2010 at 10:01 pm

  Those that have followed this thread might find it interesting to peruse the local community concerns as expressed through ARCCA (the Arbutus Ridge Concerned Citizens Association) and the ARKS Vision Committee which addresses far broader issues and is an offshoot of the city Vision planning process.

  One of the striking things is that local residents are well organized and focussed.

  Regardless whether the reader supports or opposes the Arbutus Village development, local residents are not passive about their neighbourhood.

  http://arcca.info/

  http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cityplan/visions/arks/index.htm

  Just how the rezoning process unfolds is anyone’s guess but what these links do point out are the benefits of citizen engagement

  For the record, from time to time, I have been involved in both ARCCA and ARKS.

  But judge for yourself the merits of the community arguments.
  -30-

• 38 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 12, 2010 at 10:40 pm

  Morven, what was missing in the VISION process across Vancouver was urban design. As far as I am concerned, it was a “planning” process with no “design”. That was OK then, but the tables are turning, and we may be seeing the beginning of the grassroots level community coming to the realization that it is not OK now.

  Bill’s post #29 planted the seed that the massing/bulk was awry. I was writing fast, and was not taking time to credit the discussion. It was the “sleep on it” thing. I had opened some of the drawings, and later the idea gelled: Bill was right—the massing was off.

  It is heartening to see that we are able to come to some clear outlines of where we want to go as Vancouver intensifies in the coming decades. It is not all tower-and-podium. And, the predominant concern is to test what kind of public realm the building forms are shaping.

• 39 Bill McCreery // Nov 13, 2010 at 2:05 pm

  & this discussion should translate to the Mt Pleasant / Main & Broadway collision of spot rezoning PROPOSAL vs community vision, & importantly, an existing neighbourhood character which needs to be respected & strengthened.

Leave a Comment