Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Apres Marine Gateway, le deluge

March 22nd, 2012 · 100 Comments

With the Marine Gateway project hitting the headlines after it sold out in four hours, you can bet developers will be encouraged to get moving on their projects in the area.

First up are the two towers planned for the corner of Gateway, by architect James Cheng for Intracorp. Details are here for the project, which will have 551 units, 110 of them guaranteed rentals under the STIR program

The very thoughtful and active residents in the area, who helped shape the planning for this corner — even giving it the name Marine Landing that the city has now adopted — aren’t going to get the little commercial hub they had hoped for.

A report says commercial activity wouldn’t be viable. Which seems odd to me, as there is commercial stuff there now. The report claims that being blocked by the Canada Line makes retail problematic, which I have to believe is Vancouver-centric thinking. I’ve seen many other businesses in other cities that exist in and around metro lines and seem to do fine.

At any rate, the city has negotiated to get two artist spaces on the ground floor, along with a series of live-work units, which may make that tiny strip a little more lively than if it were straight residential.

Project hearing is Monday night, the night before the Rize revolt continues for what I believe might be the final night of speakers.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Bill McCreery

    Roger, xo really read all the words in peoples sentences? I did NOT say am against towers. In fact the opposite. Please reRead what I’ve actually said. My conviction is the the community
    must decide the kinds and locations of built form not your 1950s top down planning process and not by a Council that has been bought and paid for by developers.

    If informed citizens are provided with the right information in forms that are user friendly they will make good decisions. And I have little doubt towers will be part of the answer in Vancouver.

  • Roger Kemble

    Bill Mc @ #51

    “ . . . really read all the words in peoples sentences?” Sorry Bill, of course your architectural creds are too well established and sophisticated to wallow in the all-or-nothing tower debate. I hope I can say the same thing for myself.

    If I were I would be questioning, vigorously, the agenda of the mayor’s task force and round table on Affordability. The glaring omission in his agenda of off-shore-racial-caucasian-bankster-covert-non-racial-whatever, financing raises so may red flags one has to wonder why the public is not screaming blue murder.

    I can understand those safely ensconced with their 5.5% five year shock proof bit of paper fooling themselves security, until they sell and want to re-buy in the same neigbourhood: their only option then is to go live in Patagonia! I hope I am explaining my self clearly.

    But it is their kids that are going to take it on the chin: indeed already are.

    That the mayor has excluded the, on the surface, one major contributor to Vancouver being the world’s most expensive place to live, despite having no wealth creating industry and every institution crippled by overt debt, one has to wonder his motivation.

    I admired his cool handling the Stanley cup riots. I admire his cool handling OCCUPY.

    But . . .

    Come spring will OCCUPY come to life again? Is Frances’ blog to be regaled yet again by the usual day traders and money bag shills unskillfully worming their way into our conversations to bad mouth those sincere kids peacefully looking out for their future?

    Why, no enlightened questions wondering what the mayor’s task force and round table is looking for. If, it isn’t looking for, what appears to be, on the surface, off-shore speculator/currency hedgers, what is it looking for?

    Oh don’t tell me plumbing fixtures and tungsten lite bulbs are the prob?

  • brilliant

    @F.H.Leghorn39-Most of the money is coming from the USA and other parts of Canada?! I’ll have some of what you’re smoking please

    Have you been to an open house in Vancouver lately? I can tell you Aunt Millie isn’t selling her house in Swift Current to snap up a bungalow in Dunbar. And there weren’t any Texans lining up at Marine Gateway.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    The numbers, and the origin of the “Tower on Its Side” metaphor, for the really, really curious is here:

    http://wp.me/p1mj4z-Ce

  • Broadwayishome

    In response to Roger Kemble #49 “… besides I, and I hope my colleague Bill Mc, are advocating good urban design as opposed to design by mob obsession!…”

    I am concerned when community groups, who largely consist of committed and caring individuals who devote extensive personal time to work in good faith to engage the democratic processes of the city are characterized as “mob obsession.” A better word to use might be “democracy.”

    The viewpoint of a small and select group of developers, planners, architects, and marketing consultants that only they are wise enough to make land use decisions in this city is utter nonsense and a contributor to the growth of these “mobs.” I am amazed by the indignation expressed by this select group whenever an average citizen dares to express an opinion.

    So save the condescending “Oh luvie gimme a break” for the next time you see your mother. If you have any specific and science based responses to my comments refuting claims that high rises are energy efficient, I’d welcome hearing them.

  • Roger Kemble

    Broadwayishome @ #55

    http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/New.Nanaimo.Center/pudpn/Comparisons.pdf

  • Roger Kemble

    Lewis @ # 54

    “In round numbers, we see achieving 75% of tower density as achieving “equivalent” density.

    75% (and BTW I dispute your generous interpretation) and a forfeiture of surrounding yard space normally allowed a tower.

    As for the accompanying coloured sketch, is it of a row of car batteries?

    You have just disproved your case . . . why don’t you take time out to reassess where you are?

  • boohoo

    I hesitate to enter this pissing match, but Roger ‘…a forfeiture of surrounding yard space normally allowed a tower.’ Are we seeing towers nowadays with generous yard space? Indoor/outdoor amenity space? Long gone are the Kerrisdale style tower with generous green space surrounding the tower. Nowadays it’s cram as much building on the site as possible (and then complain about having to contribute towards park space but that’s a different argument…)

  • Roger Kemble

    boohoo @ # 58

    The fire marshall still requires generous clearances surrounding the building.

  • Roger Kemble

    boohoo . . . and side yards for light, ventilation, views etc . . .

    Oh and BTW have you, or Lewis for that matter, ever designed a tower?

  • Roger Kemble

    And yes boohoo even 3.5 story town houses need side yard fire truck access.

    The last 3.5 story condo I completed two years ago we had to provide all-round access with open block paving over the planted areas.

    You can bet Lewis’ crowded sardine cans would have to be opened up if he ever had to commit his theories to the test . . .

  • boohoo

    I realize there are clearances for fire safety, but is that really the ‘surrounding yard space’ you’re talking about?

  • Roger Kemble

    BC building code with local variances . . . good luck . . . R

  • boohoo

    Huh? I’m not talking about variances in the bldg code…

    I’m asking if by surrounding yard space you meant the required setback or if you meant something else. I thought you meant something else like the grassy areas around many of the towers in Kerrisdale.

    My point being setbacks are typically not attractive places especially now as developers nearly always cover every square inch they can, unlike previous towers.

    If your point is that a benefit to towers is the surrounding yard space contained within setbacks, then you seem to contradict yourself by stating that low rise buildings would require similar…what am I missing here…

  • Roger Kemble

    . . . . side yards etc are not in the building code (see zoning by-laws) but Fire marshall’s requirements are . . .

  • boohoo

    Great, you’re not answering my question.

    Is the sideyard setback (required for whatever reason) the valuable outdoor space you think is lost to low-rise development?

  • Frank Ducote

    Boohoo – I’m not sure if I’m answering your question or not, but perhaps one way to think about usable vs unusable sideyards in high density areas of Vancouver is, if I recall correctly, to note that the sideyard requirement is zero up to 7 storeys in Downtown South and 40′ above 7 storeys.

    The 40′ sideyard is what generates the widely emulated 80′ spacing between towers that was first employed in Vancouver’s Downtown plan c. 1990.

    These usable sideyards (on podium roofs) are often beautiful common areas for residents of developments and are also visual amenities for neighbours as well. They also provide access to light and air to all buildings.

    Other neighbourhoods in Vancouver and municipalities may require a setback above a lower height, often above four storeys. Up to 4 storeys there may be no or little sideyard setback requirement, at least in higher density and mixed use areas, say like on arterials like West Broadway or West 4th Avenue.

    Hope this helps.

  • Peter Dagliesh

    Broadwayishome @48:

    I like your comment on mobs vs democracy. Wasn’t it mob rule that saved Gastown? Saved the Marine Building from demolition? Prevented a resort being built beside Lost Lagoon? But to be fair we have to give credit to the architect/planner/developer axis for bringing us the leaky condo experience, which many of us will be paying for for many years. Just trust the professionals, yeah right ….

  • boohoo

    I guess yeah, I’m not talking about downtown as it is its own, unique animal. But outside downtown, and in other municipalities, I often see setback relaxations to the point where it is simply for access and not pleasure/aesthetics/etc… That to me, is not ‘yard space’ in the same vein as someone’s backyard.

  • Frank Ducote

    You’re right there. Those side yards are intentionally pretty much for fire separation and access to/from the rear of the property, and for light and air from (usually limited) side windows. Not meant to be for active use.

  • Broadwayishome

    Roger Kemble @ 56

    Your building energy loss comparison is unique in that it appears to have no reference to energy whatsoever. Your analysis is a volumetric comparison of four building types comparing how many people can be packed into each. I don’t see any calculation or comparison of actual energy use at all. Completely overlooked is the energy penalty of providing utilities at elevated levels (pumping water up 50 stories), transport (intensive elevator use) relatively inefficient floorplates due to additional egress requirements; less efficient ratios of common walls and ceilings to exposed walls/ceilings; significantly higher exterior exposure to wind and sun (with higher heat gain/loss); additional heat loss/gain to almost exclusive use of glass cladding on high risers in BC; challenges of operable windows and ventilation effects above about 30 stories and the; challenge of maintenance and repair. The “high rise on its side” offers significantly better energy performance for these reasons.

    Any benefits accrued to high rises due to reduced transportation also vanish if compared to a Parisian strategy of extensive medium density that matches the density of high rises cities while providing a much higher quality of urban life. The standard argument in Vancouver that high land prices mandate high rises also falls apart when looking at land prices in Paris or London nearly double those in Vancouver.

    Let me close by referencing a report from a government committee in the UK, which was given a mandate to investigate this very question, in a country with similarly high land costs and a climate very similar to BC’s. It seems the House of Commons in the UK is well aligned with the views of the “mob rule” in BC.

    Excerpt:
    “The main reason that the Committee held an inquiry into tall buildings was to identify the contribution which they can make to the urban renaissance. We found that contribution to be very limited. The proposition that tall buildings are necessary to prevent suburban sprawl is impossible to sustain. They do not necessarily achieve higher densities than mid or low-rise development and in some cases are a less-efficient use of space than alternatives. They have, for the most part, the advantages and disadvantages of other high density buildings. They can be energy-efficient, they can be part of mixed-use schemes and they can encourage the use of public transport where there is spare capacity, but so can other types of high density developments. Tall buildings are more often about power, prestige, status and aesthetics than efficient development.”
    Tall buildings: Report and Proceedings of the House of Commons
    Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee.
    Sixteenth report of Session 2001-02.
    London, UK Stationery Office, 4
    September 2002, HC 482-I

  • Roger Kemble

    Peter Dagliesh @ # 68

    Wasn’t it mob rule that saved Gastown? No it wasn’t Peter (I thinq you are confusing the smoke-in). It was Larry Killam who bought up some buildings around Gassy Jacks Square in the late ‘60’s.

    Saved the Marine Building from demolition? Wot, wot, wot? I lived and practiced in Vancouver from 1957 until 1997 and never heard that one!

    Prevented a resort being built beside Lost Lagoon? Wow Peter, you got me on that one too! Never heard of it either. Are you sure you are talking about paradise Vancouver?

    But to be fair we have to give credit to the architect/planner/developer axis for bringing us the leaky condo experience . . . Well, errrrr, yes to a point although, touch wood, none of my stuff is, was, contaminated.

    The problem that started it off in the early ‘80’s, was building code committee members who essentially had a conflict of interest. In their enthusiasm to promote their own stuff, OSB for instance, they introduced too many untested products. Now we have gone overboard, the other way, with such scams as LEED certification.

    Broadwayishome @ #71

    Your building energy loss comparison is unique in that it appears to have no reference to energy whatsoever. Read the fine print more closely Broadway: in your fervent desire to find fault, read “ Heat loss depends upon rain screen design.“ on every example. Choice of cladding, and area thereof, has a profound effect: indeed heat loss to the exterior is the major heat loss of any building.

    That is why talk of the sustainability of LEED glass towers is so misleading. LEED bends its rules to follow current fashions, ergo is meaningless (see False Creek Village, alias, Olympic Village).

    Essentially, the areas of the exposed surfaces and their treatment, are the main energy conservation controllers.

    Yes, elevators contribute, and so does pumping water: so, too, cooking bathing and many of our domestic habits common to all residential buildings but, hey, who wants to live with the hungry, un-bathed.

    Water supply in many towers, (most I conjecture) my own home for instance, has enough head for pumping to be unnecessary.

    IMO if we wish to be serious about energy conversation, which I contend we do not, check out Frances’ other conversation, “Fragile TransLink agreements . . . ”. There you will find all the usual suspects going gaga over their favourites subject, shiny trinkets. I agree with Lewis, who evidently is being royally trammels, for talking LRT: but trinketeers can only talk heavy-duty tech! The problem being we need to re-jig the city . . .

    http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/1yorkshirelad/vancouver.re-boot/Vancouver.re-boot.html

    . . . our modus operandi, bring jobs and home closer together: ask the perennially unasked question, the best transportation is no transportation n’est pas?.

    But don’t discount the perennially self-indulged who have a vested interest in the status quo and who do not want to see any form of change.

    Like, for instance, Vancouver mayor’s Task force and round table on affordability: every one who is hooked to a mortgage wants off-shore speculators and hedgers to keep the gravy train oozing: don’t expect any insights or energy conservation there.

    We live in la-la land!

  • boohoo

    Roger, odd that you berate Lewis for not explaining himself but when I ask you to elaborate on what you said you don’t…

  • Roger Kemble

    boohoo @ # 73

    Life is not all black and white boohoo.

    I agree with many people whom on a wider range I disagree, but on the choice of emissions free trams, I line up with the few.

    The rub is when it comes to re-booting the city to accommodate: i.e. recognize the emerging pre-imminence of Mount Pleasant and stop the caterwauling about a selected tower.

    Vancouver’s is a FIRE economy with the better paying jobs coming, only, from levels of government: i.e. non-productive.

    This means, for instance, if you work in the Taxation Centre in Surrey, and you’re pulling down salary incommensurate with your responsibilities or in put you are not going to want to live close to work (sprawl being the only option).

    Surrey is a case in point. Good planning puts integrated communities first then fits TX to accommodate. So far we seem to be doing the opposite.

    Fit TX to accommodate is not impossible to do in Vancouver, (nor in Surrey, where indeed it would be much easier).

    All Vancouver’s established neighborhoods are ripe for trams. And Surrey is virgin territory awaiting a favourable confluence of circumstance and personnel to do it right.

    Agreeing with Lewis, who seems to have his own agenda, is just incidental to the play.

  • MB

    @ Broadway, just to clarify Roger’s point about water having a head (pressure) before pumping it to the top of a tower.

    In Vancouver the water supply comes from three lakes, Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam. The lowest lake is Capilano at about 150m elevation, which gives the water distribution network a serious gravity boost.

    Sure, there are pumps along the way, and for the tallest towers, but they start with about 60 psi already in the pipe. Not insignificant.

  • boohoo

    That’s all great Roger, but again, you’ve completely ignored my question. I was actually trying to understand what you meant by arguing towers afford open space but if you can’t/won’t, so be it.

  • Roger Kemble

    Oh good god Boohoo @ #76 I have explained in #’s 57, 59, 60, 61, 63 y 65.

    You are becoming tedious.

    If you wont get it now I am beginning to thinq you are one of the over paid government employees bored and with time on your hands.

    It’s all in the BC Building Code and local zoning by-laws: go read ‘em over your lunch!

    Now, please, get lost.

    Thanqxz for clarifying MB @ #75

  • boohoo

    Funny Roger, you berate and insult when others won’t respond to you. Hypocrite much?

    My question, AGAIN, isn’t about the bldg code or zoning. It’s about your interpretation of ‘surrounding yard space’. You advocate for towers because of it, yet you also argue it’s required for low rise buildings. You seem to want it both ways, I wonder how that works for you.

  • Roger Kemble

    Okay Boohoo @ #

    One more try: final!

    Tower on it’s side @ #54

    We have been told, over the last year, lay a tower on it side and it will yield the same number of units on the same area of land occupied by the tower up-right. Huh, Have I got that right?

    Having crunched the numbers, I disagree . . . in fact a bare eye survey is enough to enlighten the unenlightended.

    Quote from #54 . . .

    Tower density (100 units/acre x 120 acres / quartier x 2.2 persons/unit) = 26,400 people per tower neighbourhood.

    (we are not talking 100 units/acre. We are talking tower by towers that may vary in size number of units, zoning requirements and site area).

    Urban House density (75 units/acre x 120 acres/quartier x 2.2 persons/unit) = 19,800 people per walkable neighbourhood or quartier.

    Make sense of that? Plus, “In round numbers, “we” see achieving 75% of tower density as achieving “equivalent” density. Equivalent? Ummmm, NOT by Euclidian Geometry or if you can add!

    And who is the ““we”?

    Now add the practical impediments of side yard requirements, light/separation and mandatory emergency access and this “equivalency” is . . . well boohoo I leave it to you to express the appropriate adjectival equivalency!

    Can we appropriate this to the relevant file, now, please?

  • boohoo

    I guess I’m not asking the question clearly, I suppose.

    You keep talking unit numbers, I’m talking about usable, outdoor space. I don’t believe towers result in more of it than low rise developments. That was all I was saying from the start.

  • Roger Kemble

    Well boohoo 2 #80 If you have “Urban House density (75 units/acre x 120 acres/quartier x 2.2 persons/unit) = 19,800 people per walkable neighbourhood or quartier.” you can kiss any usable outdoor space goodbye . . .

  • boohoo

    Yes, I agree. Again, that’s my point. Whether it is towers or low rise, there’s very little usable outdoor space in the end.

    That’s why I questioned your argument that towers equal more surrounding yard space.

  • Roger Kemble

    Yards are not my issue boohoo

    My issue is the nonsense of equivalency tower/urban house density. You will agree the point is made!

    Yards are there by virtue of building codes and zoning.

    The nonsensical waste of yard space is nowhere more evident than in the West End where the perennial concrete stump sticks out of surrounding private property used by no one: not even the residents.

  • boohoo

    Then I wonder why you said this?

    “75% (and BTW I dispute your generous interpretation) and a forfeiture of surrounding yard space normally allowed a tower.”

  • Roger Kemble

    Here is my solution boohoo . . .

    Not the podium that exposes ground floors to lack of privacy but the atrium . . .

    http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/Atrium.jpg

  • Roger Kemble

    “75% (and BTW I dispute your generous interpretation) and a forfeiture of surrounding yard space normally allowed a tower.”

    You’d better talk to Lewis about that.

    Go back a few posts and check the context of that remark.

    He is the one who claims he can accommodate 100% of an upright tower laid flat then says only 75% without considering code or by-law requirements boohoo.

    QED

  • boohoo

    Whatever bud, forget I bothered.

  • Silly Season

    To coin a Shakespearean phrase:

    “First, we arrest all the developers!” 😉

    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Billionaire+Kwok+brothers+arrested+Hong+Kong+Hung+Properties+value/6385750/story.html

  • Everyman

    @Silly Season 88
    As they used to say on Laugh In “: Verry interesting”. I wonder what this is in relation to? If Hong Kong’s sky high property market topples, will Vancouver be next?

  • Michael Geller

    “What the hell is going on in this city?” Some Saturday afternoon musings on Density in the name of Sustainability and Affordability http://www.gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca/2012/03/what-hell-is-going-on-in-this-city.html

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    What is going on in this city—in our view—is that we are finding out that getting sustainable urbanism means laying the tower on its side:

    http://wp.me/p1mj4z-Ce

    Of course, there is still a bit of nasty business to explain. Mainly, the penchant for city planners to go ABOVE 6 stories to trigger development.

    But, that begs the larger question… What is the capacity of civic leadership today?

    Beyond the tower-and-podium do we have anything else useful to say? Beyond land-lift taxes, do we have anything else of substance to put on the table? As municipal revenue sources, for example?

    The Mount Pleasant Community Plan—if I may be so injurious to the place I’ve made my home for almost 25 years—is whoring to get land lift to pay for stuff that the planning staff themselves seemed to go out of their way, and into the neighbourhood—like so many carpet baggers—to incite.

    Sustainability and affordability? Who are we really trying to kid?

    What is the relationship between the tower-and-podium Vancouverism, and the housing bubble we are living today? Furthermore…

    What is so bloody sustainable about a 19-storey tower at Kingsway & Broadway?

    Answer: absolutely nothing! At 5.8 FSR it is a market play, pure and simple.

  • Roger Kemble

    Michael @ # 90

    From your blogspot . . . “I hope that people like Gordon Price . . . and others . . . will join into conversations about how much our city should change in the decades . . .” Ummmm, was it not but two years ago Gordon Price was telling us we live in paradise?

    You are being disingenuous, Michael, asking, “Should we forego the slender point blocks? Should we permit Toronto sized slab buildings around the city in the name of affordability?

    You know very well, (or with your experience you should know) the cause of Vancouver’s exponential real estate prices: and it has nothing to do with single loaded corridors or slender towers.

    Hongkong is reverberating with charges laid against powerful real estate moguls for corruption. Will those charges affect their projects here? Probably not: they are very powerful dudes.

    As for the horror of the bad architecture of ugly towers, well such is endemic.

    In my youth my hobby was to sketch and photograph beautiful ships with their graceful sheer and scantlings designed for seaworthiness. Such beauty no longer exists: everything ships, towers, low-rise, is now designed for bulk and eating: and until we find our ethics here we are!

    When you find the gumption and moral fortitude to question the parameters set out for your round table discussions, (or better still whisper in the mayor’s ear to broaden the task force’s terms of reference), until then I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself!

    Yes, until then, I will continue to believe you are not part of the solution you are the problem!

    Lewis @ # 91

    “Sustainability and affordability? Who are we really trying to kid?” Good for you. A false dichotomy. Keep up the pressure.

  • Michael Geller

    Lewis #91 I too agree that the CAC’s are driving in appropriate building forms.

  • Michael Geller

    Roger Kemble. You’ll be pleased to know that at a party last night I learned that the Province will soon be bringing forward legislation designed to curtail foreign investment in BC real estate.

  • Roger Kemble

    Well Michael @ #94 that is good news, not so much for me and my kids but for my G’ y GG’ kids.

    May it happen soon and retroactively . . .

  • Roger Kemble

    Michael 2 #94
    Okay another April fools joke and I bought it . . . too bad for the kids eh!

  • MB

    @ Roger #92: “In my youth my hobby was to sketch and photograph beautiful ships with their graceful sheer and scantlings designed for seaworthiness. Such beauty no longer exists: everything ships, towers, low-rise, is now designed for bulk and eating: and until we find our ethics here we are!”

    One can’t help but think of the Costa Concordia, decks piled one on top of each other like a tower with too many elevator shafts laid on its side, bursting with mindless Showbiz musack, inebriated cruisers spending enormous sums to slip by the deep onshore Italian history and partake in an on board experience they could’ve gotten cheaply in Vegas, and a captain with an insecurity complex and a need to show off.

  • Lance Berelowitz

    To jump in late in the density vs. height game, I think we need to be very skeptical of developers and their reps telling us that they have to go high-rise (that is, taller then, say, 12 storeys) to get the return on investment that they and their financiers need, because it’s just the top few floors that make the big money. If that was really the case, then why is it that so many new mid-rise (which I define here as say 6-12 storeys) concrete projects are beginning to appear around Vancouver? And not just in South East False Creek (because we know that project does not establish economically sustainability principles).

    Clearly, more and more developers are finding that mid-rise projects do indeed pencil, and this is why we are seeing them, or else they simply would not construct them. I’m just saying…

  • Roger Kemble

    My understanding Lance @ #98 is that after floor 12 cost of each floor diminishes accordingly.

    Missing is the mature urban design conversation. Missing are the sentient developers and their designers

    There is a place for towers even outside the downtown: Oakridge, Kerrisdale etc. there is a place for mix high low in a sensitively designed urban environment.

    We seem unable to design figure ground, places between with their ensuing delight, safety and commodity.

  • Bill McCreery

    Frances, your:

    “The very thoughtful and active residents in the area, who helped shape the planning for this corner …aren’t going to get the little commercial hub they had hoped for.

    “A report says commercial activity wouldn’t be viable.”

    Perhaps an inquisitor might focus on the so-called planning process that was used by the City on the Marine Landing area. Here are the steps:

    1) the ‘hood said they wanted shopping on the north side of Marine Drive; they were concerned about having to cross 8 to 16 lanes of traffic among several others; they also wanted an updated neighbourhood plan prior to the approval of any non-conforming developments;

    2) Interwest initially showed commercial;

    3) the City promised residents an intense mini-planning process;

    4) there was no intense mini-planning process;

    5) a report, apparently from the developer, is now submitted after the consultation process has been completed, saying commercial is not viable; it appears the City is about to take the developer’s word on this without doing their own due diligence;

    This is seat of the pants, by gosh and by golly, City of Vancouver sanctioned, developer driven development (the term “planning” is inapplicable here). The Vision Vancouver Council should be ashamed and embarrassed that they have let this shoddy process continue, especially after they’d been articulately informed of the shortcomings by professionals and citizens alike.

    Is it any wonder that citizens who’ve taken the time to inform themselves are extremely disillusioned?

    One must also ask why the Vision Council is allowing, and in fact, encouraging such shoddy methodologies? Answers might be found in the Vision Vancouver campaign donors list.

←  Older Comments
 →