64 responses so far ↓

• 1 PeterG // Jan 12, 2011 at 9:44 am

  Michael certainly knows which side his bread is buttered, and his response is predictable, however; when city council are looking for input the first question should not be “How much profit can we produce for the developers?”

• 2 Living in the West End // Jan 12, 2011 at 10:23 am

  I was at the forum and yes the presentation focussed more on visual images of the new tall towers than on the impact of the increase in density these new buildings will bring to downtown Vancouver.
  What I find missing from the Vancouver Views and Heritage Areas staff reports is an analysis of the population growth from developments now planned for the Granville Loops and twin tall towers on either side of the north end of the Granville Bridge, the five Drake and Davie street towers and towers in the remaining undeveloped locations in NE False Creek and Chinatown. Schooling, public amenities, transportation, shopping and more generally the liveability issues have not bee adequately addressed.
  My lay understanding of good planning is that all these issues are looked at, sadly our Chief Planner gives them virtually no mention.

• 3 Citizen YVR // Jan 12, 2011 at 11:08 am

  Randy Helten here. (Mr. Geller, please note spelling.)
  1. The “landscape architect” is Steve Bohus, with professional experience in view protection studies.
  2. I think Mr. Geller left early, so may not know that Director of Planning Mr. Toderian declined to speak when offered the chance. It was his choice to decline, but he did announce an event to correct “misinformation.” We encourage all independent thinkers (including academics and professionals) to attend that meeting when it does come up, to participate actively, and to hold the Planning Department accountable for every word. Let us hear exactly what misinformation is out there, and have a chance to respond. He said it would be in Q&A format, but I hope that there will be opportunities for a fair discussio, so that this does not just become a controlled message to set the stage for the dominant group on Council to pass two policies. What gets presented there should be for the public record, as a part of an increase in scrutiny of the performance of the Planning Department. The Planning Department should not be able to simply cut discussions off after they make their point. Bottom line, everyone should watch to see if the event is held in good faith for the public benefit. Note that Mr. Toderian was not able to announce the date or venue of the event, so we all look forward to hearing more.
  3. At issue in all policies being discussed is not the number of meetings or number of months elapsed, but the quality of the discussion. In all of these policies, I think the public should be asking for independent third-party expert reviews of Planning Department recommendations (and even presentations) to Council.
  4. Submissions from speakers were limited to two minutes, so Ned Jacobs had two minutes.
  5. The Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy is something that many members of the public do not understand, regardless of whether there have been “hundreds, yes hundreds” of presentations. The fact is that the impacts of this legislation are poorly understood. And the focus of last night was the height review, not the RGS. Watch for more on the RGS, with a media briefing on Thursday night, 7 pm. The general public has not idea what our elected officials are about to decide on the citizens’ behalf at 9 am on Friday.
  7. This meeting was set up as a community discussion with short notice and almost no resources. To classify it as a “disappointing effort” is unfair, unless someone else is ready to organize something better. The fact that this kind of discussion happened at all is thanks only to eleventh-hour action by citizens last month after the Views policy was released late on a Friday. Council deferred the decision on the views policy to January 20th. Great, but no other outreach or effort was made by the City to promote public dialogue on the topics, or even to provide more information.
  8. The event was hosted by CityHallWatch.ca and completely run by volunteers. The host was made clear in all announcements and media releases, and in the opening statement. WEN was invited to have a banner on the wall, as the West End is affected by the Vancouver Views policy, despite what the Planning Department has told our elected officials.

  The main point of the meeting last night was to raise awareness and give the public a chance to learn and speak on the issues. We are dealing with an electoral organization at City Hall that has absolute power, with 8 of 11 votes. They know it and wield it strongly. They can do anything they want while in power. I think we showed that there are a lot more factors involved in the Vancouver Views and Heritage Area Height Review Policies before Council on Jan 20. Even just the issue of environmental impacts of tall buildings alone requires more discussion. The one minute in council on Jan 16 dedicated to this topic, in which the Planning Department satisfied Council that about 64 stories is the optimum height, was insufficient depth of analysis for a city that wants to be the Greenest City in the World by 2020. The Greenest City Action Team and other independent experts should be allowed to analysis this topic further. There are many studies on this topic. Council needs to show some more sophistication on the topic of environmental impacts of buildings. And that’s just one example.

  Bottom line is that I don’t think any elected officials could in good conscience pass the two proposed policies on January 20. They don’t have enough information on all the issues raised. For such important policies, why the rush? Answer: There is no reason rush, if these decisions are to be made in the public interest. The Jan 20 meeting will be a test for Council.

  Finally, are there things to be learned from last night? Probably. The intent was to raise awareness and encourage people to do their own thinking and research.

• 4 Citizen YVR // Jan 12, 2011 at 11:16 am

  I also invite anyone to download the the main presentation of this event and review the video. I hope that in the future, other independent experts will volunteer their time to help the public review the material presented by the City. This whole event was one humble attempt to do so. We welcome comments on the presentation and discussions. That is the whole idea. The City has failed to provide the forum for a proper public discussion of these policies. This was just one attempt to do so. I hope there will be more.
  Download the main presentation here: CitizensForum, CityHallWatch, SB_11-Jan-2011 (9MB)
  Watch the video here: http://www.chatterboxfilms.org/live/Video+Blog.html

• 5 Roger Kemble // Jan 12, 2011 at 12:57 pm

  I did not attend the CityHallWatch forum: I watched the video.

  Passion runs high.

  Public aversion to towers is understandable.

  No wonder! Marine Gateway and towers at FCN and the stadiums do not inspire.

  The city is arbitrarily exploring unheard of 6/700 foot heights in the downtown and Eco-density is turning out to be just another excuse to rampage the neighbourhoods with, I use the term advisedly, chunks of concrete.

  Why? Is it for land-lift revenue? Is the city so hard up?

  True, our development design professionals do not know, or have forgotten, how to design high: or even low for that matter!

  But to be against towers, period, is a pretty rough grain approach to urbanism when there are typologies that can make towers quite amenable to the village.

  One way is to create a figure ground based on the atrium: private introspective court yards inwardly oriented with peripheral small scale commercial.

  Unfortunately views seem to be the driving force in Vancouver: the north shore mountains are indeed magnificent.

  But may not a view of an intimate rinconada be just as soothing?

  Sensitivity is a word scorned when deadlines and compound interest crowd out our sensiblilities. Unfortunately in the high energy atmosphere of this kind of debate subtleties seem to be lost.

  I noticed one encouraging sign. I got a brief glimpse of a back ground signs that read “Not Denman City. Denman Village” and that, to me, says it all.

  Village says people scale, walkable safe streets, the smell of new baked bread, the butcher who knows us by name as we walk in, cheeky kids running, tripping over and around interconnected places.

  Architecture that reflects, creatively, our ethos, form that says today you are important, colours materials, textures exotically woven into our spaces leaving us with that sensuous feeling in the knowledge we know who we are. That is what seems to be lost in the debates of today!

• 6 boohoo // Jan 12, 2011 at 1:38 pm

  “Unfortunately views seem to be the driving force in Vancouver: the north shore mountains are indeed magnificent.”

  For how long? Of greater interest to me than a few more stories on a tower in downtown Vancouver is the disgusting single family creep in West/North Vancouver.

• 7 Citizen YVR // Jan 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm

  I encourage people of good will to read this article about two public hearings today.
  http://www.straight.com/article-367934/vancouver/city-schedules-meetings-different-locations-major-rezonings-granville-street

  Please join the call for a review of the performance of the Planning Department. The City is bound by ethics and its own code of conduct to serve the public first and foremost. We look for evidence that it is doing so. Just can’t seem to find any.

• 8 The Fourth Horseman // Jan 12, 2011 at 2:00 pm

  boohoo…YIKES!

  Disgusting single family creep? Do you think that single family should NOT be an option in this part of Metro? North Van has quite a few condo towers, and more on the way in the Lonsdale area. West Van has quite a few apartments (rental0 as well as condos along the Bellvue corridor in Ambleside and Hollyburn. Indeed, prices over there, both in rentals and housing, appear to be more reasonable than inVancouver proper, if you condier that millionaires like a break too! LOL!

  The last time I looked, the majority of condos, at least on the Vancouver side, were of a single bedroom variety, hardly ameniable to anyone with a kid. Built for investors, not for families.

  Is everyone supposed to give over their land for towers or other multi-family dwellings?

• 9 boohoo // Jan 12, 2011 at 2:03 pm

  Calm down 4th… It’s a comment on the disgusting creep up the mountain. Whether it’s single family, multi-family or a wal-mart doesn’t matter.

  Your last question…is just silly.

• 10 Claudia // Jan 12, 2011 at 2:52 pm

  Re: #8. To clarify, the 4 PM meeting is an Urban Design Panel meeting concerning the Marpole Safeway. While the public can attend, it is not a public hearing – the public is not allowed to speak.

  The Shannon Mews open house is at 7 PM, at Ryerson United Church, Yew St. & 45th Ave. I hope and trust that public input will be welcome and encouraged at this open house.

  I plan to attend both of these meetings shortly, and agree that it is unfortunate that they could not have happened on two separate occasions. It certainly makes for a busy afternoon/evening, and there are certainly a great deal of important issues to discuss and absorb, all in one day.

• 11 Claudia // Jan 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm

  Oops, sorry, I was referring to post #7.

• 12 IanS // Jan 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm

  @ Boohoo #9:

  You write “Calm down 4th… It’s a comment on the disgusting creep up the mountain. Whether it’s single family, multi-family or a wal-mart doesn’t matter.”

  Ah. So your concern is not so much the nature of the development, but rather it’s location (ie. displacing forest on the mountain)?

• 13 Joe Just Joe // Jan 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm

  I’m a little uneasy on the view cone relaxation policy, even if it is only intended for half a dozen sites period. I fear the potential is there to add more and more down the line. If assurances (do those even still exist?) could be made that this is it, then I could fully support the proposed policy.
  As to the second policy regarding the HAHR I am 100% in favour of it, and so are the most important players in that community. Reading the policy there are dozens of letters in support from the various societies and organizations in the area. Sure there is a vocal minority that will oppose any change to the status quo but the policy proposed is very well thought out It’s considerate of the area and evovled over years of consultation. Even the two special sites proposed are limited to 150ft and will not distrube the feel of our historic heart. Hopefully our 2 resident urbanish planners can take a moment and examine the acutual document.

  http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/hahr/HAHR%20Policy%20Implementation%20Report%20(RTS%208578).pdf

• 14 Bill McCreery // Jan 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm

  This is not the 1st instance of double booking…

  One of the outcomes of the ever bigger, ever higher simplistic school of planning is that the sought after views of the mountains disappear over time as the next round of rationalizations occurs. Case in point is the poor fellow who paid in the millions for his penthouse downtown only to have his panoramic view blindsided by the Shangrala.

  What’s going to happen to the West Van mountains is a good question. More of the same would not be good. But, who’s to say it all has to be carpet cleared and single familied (would you believe 25,000 sf houses!). There are 3 or 4 small medium density projects just above the highway which are hardly noticeable. For those who want to live in the forest and a condo maybe that could prevail and in the process the equivalent land which would be used as single family would be left in it’s natural state. Not THE answer but, maybe a start.

• 15 Deacon Blue // Jan 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm

  No suckers, huh? No one spent two, or three, or four weeks of their time reviewing all the literature, beefing up on tower design, and working like mad to put it into a format that can be delivered in 2 to 15 minutes.

  Go figure.

• 16 Sean Bickerton // Jan 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm

  While I shared Mr. Helten’s well-placed concerns about the Mayor’s ill-fated STIR program, we part ways when it comes to the crucial role that towers, height and density need to play in our city’s future planning:

  http://seanbickerton.com/2011/01/12/in-praise-of-height-and-density/

  Residents who live in towers have the smallest ecological footprint of residents in all other forms of housing.

  Towers provide homes for the homeless, as in the Woodwards development which now houses more than 250 people who were out on the street.

  Density provides the tax revenues necessary to fund schools, libraries, day care and homeless shelters among other services. Those decrying recent school closures should be avid supporters of towers.

  Towers provide affordable homes. Not all of us can afford $1,000,000 lots and so we live communally and more affordably in towers.

  Towers aren’t appropriate stuck in the middle of a bunch of single-family homes, but they are absolutely appropriate in cities because they are green, provide affordable housing and help pay for the services we need.

• 17 Citizen YVR // Jan 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm

  Great discussion. Mr Bickerton, evidence is required. A good public discussion with independent experts providing input would be a good thing.

• 18 boohoo // Jan 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm

  I agree Sean. I lived in Seoul for several years, and while the architecture is horrible (to be kind) the sense of community in the immediate area around my tower was fantastic. Each neighbourhood (based pretty much around the subway stop) is unique, each with it’s own characteristics and it’s almost entirely multi-family buildings/towers.

  My experience there makes the whole Cambie Corridor planning exercise and it’s 70 block tunnel of 4-6 storey buildings so bizzare. But that’s a topic that isn’t hitting the blog radar…

• 19 Michael Geller // Jan 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm

  Iwould like to second the comment from ‘Living in the West End’. I too agree that there is a need to more clearly identify the potential increase in commercial and residential capacity resulting from the proposed increase in heights and densities. and the corresponding demand for new amenities.

  There is also a need to attempt to quantify the number of parking spaces that might be required, along with trip generation. I appreciate that this will be difficult, since the assumption is that in the future more and more people will travel by alternative means. However, there will likely be more cars to be parked in a 600 foot tower, when compared with a 300 foot tower. Similarly, a 700 foot tower will likely require more parking than a 600 foot tower.

  I would assume that staff have done some of this analysis. However I didn’t see it in the presentation to council that instead focuses on how different heights and views would appear if the proposals were adopted.

  In response to Randy Helten, he is correct in noting that I left at 8:15, at the end of all the speeches. I do applaud his initiative in organizing the event, especially on such short notice. However, I was disappointed with the presentations since they all seemed to be almost exclusively anti-high rise (at any height) rather than address the specific proposals before Council.

  The speakers seemed to be advocating that Vancouver should be more like Paris.

  It is too late to try and turn Vancouver into Paris. Furthermore, I don’t think we should. That being said, I am generally opposed to allowing high rises in the Heritage Areas.

  A few other comments. I thought the presentations were somewhat naive and misinformed for the following additional reasons.

  Mr. Helten first concern with highrises related to earthquake risks. Having seen computer modeling of how Wall Centre and other tall buildings will respond in an earthquake, and having some understanding of our seismic requirements, I do not think this is a valid reason for not building more highrises.

  Randy Chatterjee seemed to be suggesting that high rises were less sustainable than other building forms. I disagree with this. While a glass wall may have a lower R value than an insulated woodframe wall, Vancouver highrises are required to conform to an energy by-law…furthermore, other factors such as people per acre, and the improved benefits of access to transit, shopping, etc. associated with high rises should not be ignored.

  Mr. Bohus suggested that the taxes from high rises are less than lower forms of development. This is not correct. It is true that in some exceptional cases, when a mixed use site with a small commercial building is redeveloped with a predominantly residential building, the taxes may be lower because commercial classification results in higher taxes than a residential classification. However, this is a particular situation. As a general rule, the higher the building, and the greater the building area, the greater the assessment and taxes paid to the city.

  Finally, I am pleased that the Director of Planning did attend, and trust he too will respond to some of the points raised by the speakers at his forthcoming briefing, in advance of the Public Hearing. I am pleased this is likely to take place since there is a lot of misunderstanding related to these proposals.

• 20 Susan Walker // Jan 12, 2011 at 4:07 pm

  I attended the forum and applaud the effort. Problem was that majority of people there wanted to focus on the issue of the proposed new height allowance. The power point went on much too long and spilled over to other issues (the homeless, poverty, City Hall’s deaf ear. taxes etc.)

  Mr. Meggs spoke to defend the Council position, once again pleased to be “preserving view
  corridors from QE Park.” No one LIVES in QEP.

  I live have lived in the West End for over 25 years and my concern is what these giant structures will do to our LIGHT and our way of life.

  Our streets are narrow– and one giant bldg can mask the light for a whole neighbourhood.

  We live in the (mostly) damp, grey north for about 8 months per year. Daylight and Vitamin D
  are required, not giant clumps of sold — and mostly empty– sterile structures. Mountain views are nice but LIGHT is a requirement.

  Thanks for organizing the meeting– but one hopes for a tighter focus next time.

• 21 Richard // Jan 12, 2011 at 4:14 pm

  What is the transportation problem? Over the last couple of decades the population of downtown Vancouver has increased dramatically yet car trips, traffic and congestion have decreased unless, of course, you count the crowded sidewalks. Probably the worse that could happen is walking into someone while texting and meet them. May be even get a date out of it.

  The bottom line is though, that the more people live near downtown Vancouver, the fewer people driving through Vancouver communities
  Over 40% of people living in the West End walk to work. They don’t require investments in costly freeways or rapid transit systems for that matter to get around.

  The cityhallwatch web site mentions a couple of supposed environmental issues. One is the lack of insulation of glass cladding but that is an issue if the building is 4 or 40 stories. If a tower is clad in something makes the building more energy efficient, this would not be an issue. Another is the energy used to pump water. If this is indeed a major issue, the energy could be recovered from the used water going down by having it drive a mechanical pump to push fresh water up or even a generation. Anyway, the amount of energy required increases with the distance above sea level so I suspect a similar amount of energy would be required to pump water up the hill to a single family house near Queen E park.

  To be fair, they do state “CityHallWatch would like to ask the city to amend the building code to address these points before considering additional high rises in the city.”

  Regarding shopping, more stores are needed. The city should also get around to improving pedestrian and bike connections over the Granville Bridge so people can get to Granville Island in a reasonable amount of time. Funding from these developments would be a great way of making that happen sooner rather than later.

• 22 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm

  @boohoo 18 – unfortunately the whole of the Cambie Corridor program isn’t 4-6 stories. A seperate planning program for the Oakridge Mall was completed a while back and will be offering more than just 4 – 6 stories and while not officially a part of the Cambie Corridor Planning Program, those developments will contribute to the same area. And the southern most part of the corridor at Marine & Cambie is also looking at much more than 4 -6 stories.

  One of the objectives in Vancouver is to provide a variety of housing types – if we become completely anti-lower density, and replace every spec of space with a tower, what variety will there be in the future, and what will Vancouver look like in 75 years? Perhaps some feel that’s not our concern, since most of us aren’t likely to still be here in 75 years, but it will be the concern of future generations – and isn’t it them that we are really supposed to be planning for – since the current planning is looking out 50 years.

• 23 Westender1 // Jan 12, 2011 at 6:01 pm

  Is a 30 storey building twice as “green” as a 15 storey one? A 60 storey building four times so? As someone who likes to take three flights of stairs to and from my front door, I’ll need some convincing on that.
  And for BooHoo: over the last 20 years there has been no “creep up the mountainside” in North Vancouver – the upper urban limit has been well respected.
  West Vancouver is a different situation.

• 24 boohoo // Jan 12, 2011 at 6:04 pm

  Jo-Ann,

  The higher densities around Oakridge make perfect sense. Make that a node and have density around it. The problem with this plan is they’re upping the densities all along Cambie, but ignoring one block off Cambie… and maybe they’ll look at it later in some distant phase 3. Seems odd. 4-6 stories at say 30th and Cambie but single family at say 24th and Ash.

  But, ‘replace every spec of space with a tower’ shows me you really don’t want to engage the issue anyway.

• 25 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 12, 2011 at 8:20 pm

  The City info session is Monday, January 17, 2011. 7:00-8:30 pm at the Empire Landmark Hotel (1400 Robson Street) in the Crystal Ballroom (lobby level).

  Joe Just Joe, I find it strange that you feel comfortable enough about the HAHR policy to declare, “I am 100% in favour of it, and so are the most important players in that community.”

  Really? See the form letters signed by the different Chinese Societies, and you will find their support comes with a very specific caveat, a great big carrot. What about the heritage preservation groups? Do they not express concerns? Or is heritage not important in an Historic Area? What about the community groups like CCAP and others, do they support this, especially the proposals (which appear to be new additions to this policy, and not the result of any consultation) for towers as far as Gore Street?

  Has any analysis been done on the effect on property values? What amenities have been identified as desireable in these neighbourhoods? What is the target population and density? What is the appropriate housing mix? What infrastructure or transportation upgrades are required? What are the social implications of mixing high-end and SROs?

  None of these key issues are addressed, and yet Joe Just Joe thinks it is “well thought-out”?

  To use your own words, Joe, I have an issue with the HAHR height “relaxation policy, even if it is only intended for half a dozen sites period. I fear the potential is there to add more and more down the line.”

  In other words, substitute “height” for “view cone” and the exact same problem you are concerned about arises in HAHR, namely, the far greater powers of the DoP to ignore all guidelines and by-laws and field tower proposals ANYWHERE he damn well pleases.

  I guess that’s OK if you have confidence in his judgement, but maybe you should check with West Enders, Mt. Pleasant, Shannon Mews, South Cambie residents and see what sort of confidence they have in Planning right now.

  I think the HAHR policy represents a massive unravelling of the Historic Area by-laws that contributed to the unique Gastown area we see now. In Chinatown, they represent the International Villagization of all non-heritage sites that remain (a case where “village” doesn’t mean human scale at all, Urbie). This is especially going to proliferate on the blocks south of Georgia down to where the viaducts are now.

  The certainty we want vanishes with these proposals, so that, clearly, nothing is really “protected” anymore. Not view cones, not heritage, not by-laws, not height restrictions. They are all “open for consideration” if the price is right.

  All that a developer has to do is go fishing.

• 26 Joe Just Joe // Jan 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm

  Gassy Jack, two of the city’s advisory committees dedicated to the area, the Chinatown Historic Area Planning Committee and the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee have helped work on the proposal and are in support of it. These two committees are extremely dedicated to maintaining the historic aspect of the area. The Vancouver Heritage Commission has also voiced support for the proposal, they aren’t dedicated to the area but citywide.
  CCAP being against the proposal isn’t a surprise, it is a shame that they couldn’t be brought on broad but I don’t think any change from the status quo would’ve flown with them.
  As for the population goals I seem to recall that market based residents would increase to ~15K from the existing numbers over the course of buildout 20-25yrs.

• 27 gasp // Jan 12, 2011 at 9:24 pm

  To Sean Bickerton at 16:

  This is not an accurate statement:

  “Residents who live in towers have the smallest ecological footprint of residents in all other forms of housing.”

  “Ecological footprint” is defined as the amount of land and water needed to sustain a person’s consumption and waste patterns. It is currently estimated that collectively we in Canada occupy approximately 7.6 hectares for every man, woman and child. This means that every person added to Vancouver adds 7.6 hectares to Vancouver’s collective footprint; adding more people does not decrease the City’s footprint, whether or not those added live in towers.

  Where people live does not necessarily decrease their individual footprint, even though it may decrease the amount of energy used for heating and personal transportation. Recent studies have shown that people who live in high density areas tend to eat out more, travel more, buy more things and use more – all of which increases their ecological footprint by increasing their consumption and waste patterns.

  The essence of living sustainably is to follow that old expression “reduce, reuse and recycle” and to not use more of the earth’s resources than are necessary to sustain yourself, ensuring that there are resources available for future generations.

  Single family areas in the City of Vancouver do more than “waste space”. They also contribute immensely to the environment by providing the true green space (i.e., vegetation) necessary to produce the oxygen for those living in towers to breathe, as well as the space necessary to grow food for many people in the City – which does help to decrease the City’s footprint.

• 28 voony // Jan 12, 2011 at 9:56 pm

  Gasp@27

  “Recent studies have shown that people who live in high density areas tend to eat out more, travel more, buy more things and use more”

  I can see which ONE study you are referring to.

  This study made abstraction of the social income: basically people living in high density area have more disposable income than other, so they spend more…
  but you can’t tied it to a specific urban form.

• 29 West End Ranger // Jan 12, 2011 at 10:23 pm

  The patronizing tone and blatant untruths in Mr. Geller’s “report” on the Tall Building forum are quite pathetic. As can vouch all who attended, Mr. Toderian was invited but declined to contribute to the discussion. This forum was well attended and the presentations were very informative and well documented. Mr. Geller should have paid attention instead of thumb typing on his mobile all evening – for instance he would have learned how you can contribute positively and selflessly to your community’s education on very complex planning issues. This forum was very successful in its effort to engage a broad spectrum of citizens on the complexities of view cone and building height policy. I applaud Mr. Helten and Mr. Bohus for their leadership and their dedication to promote a better dialogue within our community. Mr. Toderian is right : there is a lot of disinformation out there – especially from this developer-friendly city council and staff.

• 30 Deacon Blue // Jan 12, 2011 at 10:23 pm

  “It is too late to try and turn Vancouver into Paris. Furthermore, I don’t think we should.”

  Geller 19

  I did not read Nigel Baldwin’s letter last week as a ‘Manifesto to Rebuild the City of the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon’. Although in line with Marx’s thinking I worry about avoiding the “…circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero’s part”. [Preface to the 2nd Edition].

• 31 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 12, 2011 at 10:55 pm

  “I think the HAHR policy represents a massive unravelling of the Historic Area by-laws that contributed to the unique Gastown area we see now. In Chinatown, they represent the International Villagization of all non-heritage sites that remain (a case where “village” doesn’t mean human scale at all, Urbie). This is especially going to proliferate on the blocks south of Georgia down to where the viaducts are now.”

  Ghost, it’s hard to disagree. There is a toxic combination to the events that I am reading on this thread.

  On the one hand, a mis-information about the facts. JJJ on a previous thread was using 4 – 5 – 6 FSR as one might consider different times for a hair appointment.

  On the other, there is a swagger about all these deals for towers at City Hall that you quite rightly point to as undermining our longest held traditions.

  What are the implications for social, economic and environmental functioning in a tower neighbourhood vs. a human-scaled neighbourhood?

• 32 Citizen YVR // Jan 12, 2011 at 11:24 pm

  Mr Geller said “Mr. Helten first concern with highrises related to earthquake risks. Having seen computer modeling of how Wall Centre and other tall buildings will respond in an earthquake, and having some understanding of our seismic requirements, I do not think this is a valid reason for not building more highrises.”
  To Mr Geller. Thank you for getting the spelling right
  To clarify, seismic safety was simply ONE example of the multitude of issues about taller buildings, not necessarily my top issue. And I did not use it as a reason not to build highrises. I personally am not saying no highrises. I am neutral regarding building height and form. What concerns me in every case is the decision-making process. But on the seismic issue, I respectfully encourage the City and proponents of tall buildings to provide the public with reliable evidence that the BC building code for structures of the height of the Shangri-La or higher is safe. Please show us how standards for the Shangri-La and other tall buildings proposed compare to the best practices in the world. Peer-reviewed studies and so on. This seismic topic alone is worth extensive public debate, and there are many more topics, which were only lightly touched upon at the forum. The “views” part of the Vancouver Views policy up on January 20 is just the tip of the iceberg. I don’t see how any responsible elected official serving the public interest would pass that policy without a more sophisticated discussion on all of these issues. And on Dec 16 at a daytime committee meeting, a certain bloc of councillors was fully intending to pass that policy. Who is looking after the public interest?

• 33 voony // Jan 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm

  I have also watch the video apparently recording only the begining of the meeting.

  2 points:
  (1)
  the critic formulated about the power transfer involved by the RGS. I have the feeling they are well understood by the public which has attended the Metro open house. This transfer of power is rather welcomed by citizen of Richmond seeing green space at risk under development pressure and municipality competition to increase tax base.
  Sure from Vancouver where Stanley park is granted and basically urban containment is off limit: this fact could be harder to grasp.
  I don’t understand this ill-placed digression on the RGS of the meeting chair.

  (2) the first speaker, as mentioned by Michael, has as model the Paris of Amelie Poulain.
  Experience Paris as a tourist or as an all year around inhabitant is another story:
  Honestly, when come quality of life, Paris is off the radar.

  Sure Paris had a “ban” on tall building (greater than 33m …that left you still room for 10-12 storeys building where there is no ban !)…but that is the past: recently Paris has decided to reintroduce ‘extremely tall high rise’:
  http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/chronicle-of-paris/

• 34 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 13, 2011 at 8:58 am

  Yesterday saw Ms. Pringle and Mr. Bickerton on the same side of the tracks as far as the urbanism is concerned:

  “One of the objectives in Vancouver is to provide a variety of housing types – if we become completely anti-lower density, and replace every spec of space with a tower…”

  Jo-Ann Pringle 22

  Measured at the scale of the neighbourhood as a whole (i.e gross density), rather than one site at a time (ie. FSR or net density), we can achieve the same density with towers as with 3.5 storey product.

  I provided material evidence that we can build high density with fee-simple, human scale product in my entry to the FormShift competition two years ago. That was the point of entering the competition in the first place.

  The issue is not about being “anti-lower density”. It’s about “built form” not density. Thinking solely about building product puts the focus on the wrong issue:

  “[T]he crucial role that towers, height and density need to play in our city’s future planning”

  Sean Bickerton 16

  I have numbered the other thesis in post 16 for the sake of reference.

  1. “Residents who live in towers have the smallest ecological footprint of residents in all other forms of housing.”

  A graduate from UBC presenting at Vancouver Urban Design Forum a year or so ago had a different point of view. She claimed that each suite in a tower had the same—that’s equal—carbon footprint as a house in the suburbs.

  One or another person must be right on this one. Which one is it?

  2. “Towers provide homes for the homeless, as in the Woodwards development which now houses more than 250 people who were out on the street.”

  Warehousing the homeless in towers has a long list of dissenters. In Chicago, having all units accessed through the same elevator lobby facilitated the control of entire building blocks by drug dealers. Oscar Newman, in the 1960′s, already described towers as best suited to house the demographic that can afford to hire building staff (door, concierge, valet and resident building repairs).

  The point is to zone towers in very unique districts, rather than let them sprawl.

  3. “Density provides the tax revenues necessary to fund schools, libraries, day care and homeless shelters among other services. Those decrying recent school closures should be avid supporters of towers.”

  Yes and No. Yes, density is the lifeblood of urbanism—when it is well designed.

  No, we need not become avid supporters of towers in order to have functioning, high density cities. On the contrary, a well diversified construction industry offers the best balance to our democracy.

  The urbanism is also stronger. The best neighbourhoods result from the judicial application of high density, human scale product that is fee simple. $1 million dollars? Better put in some “mortgage helper suites” into the units and provide affordable housing in the process.

  Property is a ladder. Individuals can buy higher value product as the decades pass. What we can’t afford is to move into dysfunctional neighbourhoods.

  4. “Towers provide affordable homes. Not all of us can afford $1,000,000 lots and so we live communally and more affordably in towers.”

  Towers trigger land speculation. On affordable housing, I would like to see data. If we are talking rentals, the mortgage helper suites will win out. If we are talking entry level properties, better to have good transit and spread the load around. Distance from the core will provide better prices.

  5. “Towers aren’t appropriate stuck in the middle of a bunch of single-family homes, but they are absolutely appropriate in cities because [1] they are green, [4] provide affordable housing and [3] help pay for the services we need.”

  Square brackets refer back to the preceding discussion. In every case, Mr. Bickerton has not provided concrete evidence in support of these assertions.

• 35 Max // Jan 13, 2011 at 9:21 am

  Does anyone truly beleive that higher towers will offer ‘affordable housing’ to those that seek them.

  Like the vast majority of the other properties in the downtown core – they will be purchased by offshore owners who will charge what they can for rent.

  As for everyone else, back to square one.

• 36 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 10:13 am

  @boohoo, as far as it has been explained to our working group, the goal of the City isn’t to preserve single family houses. Of the plans that we have looked at with the staff at the City forthe Cambie Corridor, they show what they call infill, into the single family home areas over time. But my intial response was addressing your comment that planning for the Cambie Corridor is all 4 – 6 stories – just wanted to clarify that it isn’t – quite the contrary in some places.

  Whether towers will provide more affordable housing for people in Vancouver remains to be seen. A condo may cost less than a house – but costing less and being “affordable” aren’t the same. With today’s market prices in Vancouver, and the popularity of off-shore investors buying and flipping units – the lower costing condo is likely still not going to be “affordable” to many.

• 37 Joe Just Joe // Jan 13, 2011 at 11:47 am

  Lewis I recommend you acutally read the document I linked to and perhaps you’ll change your mind. You won’t find too much about 3.5story fee-simple quartiers though so I doubt it.
  I’m off to my hair appointment now, I eagerly await your response to tell me what we should be building instead.

• 38 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 13, 2011 at 11:50 am

  “I seem to recall that market based residents would increase to ~15K from the existing numbers over the course of buildout 20-25yrs.”

  With all due respects Joe Just Joe, can you not see any reason why a predominantly low income community might be against a plan that is pushing to land 15,000 market condo dwellers into their neighbourhood in the next 20-25 years?!

  I would suggest that, if that is true, then the Planning Department has suddenly become the largest social engineering department this city has ever seen, despite their claim to have “deliberately” narrowed the scope of their review to only “scale and form.” If this is not the very definition of a hidden agenda, then I don’t know what is.

  I would very much like to know what our 2 resident candidates for City Council, Bill McCreery and Sean Bickerton, think of this?

  And before you spout off against Vision’s “radical agenda”, please be reminded that the HAHR was an NPA directive.

• 39 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 12:29 pm

  Jo Ann,

  Replacing single family houses to some form of multi-family adjacent to the stations along Cambie makes sense.–it’s not turning’every spec to towers’. That kind of knee jerk reaction does nothing to engage the process.

  I’ve been to a number of these events as well (just checked I’m actually in two of the photos on the City website lol) and if you look at the information presented–QE precinct for example: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cambiecorridor/public/phase2/pdf/10nov/queenelizabeth.pdf

  You see a continuum of 4-6 storey buildings along Cambie and then all single family behind. Where are these towers you’re afraid of? My point is just that the density proposed should be more concentrated around the station node rather than along the entire stretch of Cambie. Why you’d densify at say 31st and Cambie rather than say 23rd and Ash makes is curious.

• 40 Bill McCreery // Jan 13, 2011 at 12:57 pm

  @ boohoo 38.

  The building forms, even the heights are not the issue in all this. “Citythink”, as revealed last night by the Planner at the Shannon Mews Open House, is all about densifying “corridors”. It is not about neighbourhoods or the people who live in them.

  In addition, supposedly unbiased information about these spot rezonings is being fed to us by the Planning Department in fragments. Why? Community Plans and existing zoning by-law requirements are ignored. Why?

• 41 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 1:12 pm

  I guess I don’t understand the ‘citythink’ that densifies 8 blocks from a subway station while not densifying 2 blocks from one.

  Community plans are just that, plans. They’re not set in stone.

• 42 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm

  @boohoo – I have not mentioned fear of towers – I simply corrected your statement about the Cambie Corridor being all 4 -6 stories – which it isn’t. To further your comment about engaging the process – I am curious as to why you are to posting under an alias. I don’t mind if your opinion differs from mine, and I am willing to put my name out there alongside my comments – but both dialogue and process are more meaningful, when we know who we are addressing.

• 43 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 1:34 pm

  Jo Anne,

  You were questioning if we were going to “replace every spec of space with a tower”. Perhaps you’re not afraid of it, but you even asking that question hypothetically is frankly nonsense. It’s like calling out those who advocate for bike lanes as wanting every car off the road. It’s an extremist argument/question that serves no purpose other than to inflame the discussion.

  The Cambie corridor is planned to be 4-6 stories, aside from the immediate area around the stations. I question why the 4-6 story buildings at say 31st aren’t closer to a station.

• 44 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm

  @boohoo – I think perhaps you have misunderstood, I made a comment about one of the goals of CoV being to provide a variety of housing types – so if over the course of 50 or 75 years, we turn everything into towers, realistically what will the variety be. I didn’t have a question.

  Most of the Cambie Corridor shows plans for lower forms, but not all of it. There are higher forms expected at 41st & Cambie, and at Marine & Cambie, and when the future station at 57th & Cambie comes into existence.

  Again, with my name displayed for all, I stand behind my comments.

• 45 Joe Just Joe // Jan 13, 2011 at 1:50 pm

  Gassy Jack, I fully agree that 15K new market residents will affect the area, where we differ is if that effect will be positive or negative. The current balance doesn’t seem healthy either.
  At least with the current proposal the new residents can be housed w/o removing the homes of the current residents. W/O the new density market residents will still come into the area and compete with current residents causing even more displacement.

• 46 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 1:50 pm

  Jo Anne,

  Who is suggesting we turn everything into towers?

  I think we’re saying the same thing about Cambie, but I think densities at the stations is a good thing.

• 47 Bill McCreery // Jan 13, 2011 at 2:18 pm

  Boohoo, how much density is a good thing?

• 48 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 2:20 pm

  @boohoo – I agree – density at the stations is a good idea. The trick is determining how much density works for each station area – which should and hopefully will come from proper planning. But this thread was on the Citizens Forum on Building Heights – which generated the discussion about towers specifically.

• 49 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 2:29 pm

  Bill,

  That’s a massive question lol. What or who defines ‘good’?

  Jo-Anne, so who is suggesting we turn everything into towers? The COV says they want a variety of types, and you say how is all towers variety. So where are you getting that from?

• 50 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 2:40 pm

  @boohoo – unfortuantely we are going around in circles – I didn’t say – how is all towers variety. If in 75 years we’ve densified too much, and put up too many towers – how then, will there be housing variety. A good planning program not only looks at today’s growing needs, but also looks ahead to access how the “ideas” we have today will affect our city in the future so that we can make the right decisions. I don’t have all of the answers and neither do you.

  If you want to continue this discussion, please tell us who you are.

• 51 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 2:48 pm

  “One of the objectives in Vancouver is to provide a variety of housing types – if we become completely anti-lower density, and replace every spec of space with a tower, what variety will there be in the future, and what will Vancouver look like in 75 years?”

  You didn’t say ‘too many towers’, you said ‘replace every spec of space with a tower’.
  Big difference.

• 52 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 2:53 pm

  @boohoo – out with it – who are you?

• 53 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 3:00 pm

  Does it matter Jo-Anne? I’m a concerned citizen, just like you.

  I fail to see how that has anything to do with you arguing you didn’t say something you clearly said.

• 54 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 3:07 pm

  @boohoo – I’ve explained both my comment and my thinking quite clearly.

• 55 boohoo // Jan 13, 2011 at 3:11 pm

  If ‘too many’ and ‘replace every spec’ is the same thing, then yes you did.

  As an aside, I asked a planner at the first open house why the initial starting point was the corridor only and not based on nodes around the stations. He said ‘good question’ and mumbled off. It didn’t provide much confidence in the process…

• 56 Jo-Anne Pringle // Jan 13, 2011 at 3:17 pm

  @boohoo – agreed – on both points.

• 57 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Jan 13, 2011 at 4:07 pm

  JJJ, I’m not sure if this planned mass migration of condo dwellers will be a good or bad thing either? But the point is, we all know what the outcome of 15000 condo dwellers will have on this low income community: Hard Gentrification and Displacement.

  But social implications aside, I also think from heritage, cultural, and urban design considerations, it is a very slippery slope, and represents a major shift from the post-Project 200 by-laws that have mostly protected the area for 40 plus years, and made it one of the most interesting places in the city to live. It seems we are, again, in the process of erasing our own history.

  And let’s face it, folks, the endless focus on “height” and “density” is a bloody joke no matter which neighbourhood these mass landings are taking place. It is a deliberately narrow, pig-headed focus that is only one small part of developing a sustainable, livable and viable neighbourhood. Furthermore, it has precious little research or precedent to back up the claims of “community amenity” development, “revitalization”, integrated infrastructure, and “footprint” or “CO2” reduction, etc.

  On the other hand, there is plenty of research and best practices that underscore the need for integrated planning to ensure that all legs of the stool are in place. In this day and age, integrated planning should be a no-brainer, and not come AFTER the by-laws are already changed! What is the rush here?

  If our planners and politicians wish to continue on with this old paradigm, ad hoc approach, substituting goals like “density” and “punctuation point” and “gateway” wank-jobs in place of “livable community” goals, then so be it. I guess developers will just have to live with the fact that neighbourhood groups will continue to organize and protest and fight for their neighbourhood livability, forcing costly delays, endless redesigns, and major political fallout. Sounds like a horribly uncertain environment to do business in, though.

• 58 Don Buchanan // Jan 13, 2011 at 5:46 pm

  Hi all,

  What has been missing from the discussion so far is the work the City did on financing growth. Here is the link to the documents, see the bottom of the page for the Financing Growth Review:

  http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/financinggrowth/documents.htm

  The important part for me is that the costs of growth appear to be underestimated and that existing Development Cost Charges don’t come near to paying for the costs of growth. The report estimates DCLs will pay for 26% of the cost of growth, with current levels of Capital Plan funding covering about 25% more. page 13

  So for every new housing unit, the new Vancouver resident will pay for 26% of the extra services they use, and existing taxpayers will pay 25%, and the remaining piece will be covered by ever more crowded facilities.

  Basically from what is on the website it appears that if Vancouver were to be built all over again, based on the revenues collected from new development and borrowing for capital expenses based on property taxes, we’d have the same city we have now population wise but with only half the services.

  While the report is out of date it notes that at the time Vancouver had the lowest DCLs in the GVRD with Richmond, the Langleys, NV District, being twice the Vancouver rate and Surrey being four times our cost recovery.

• 59 Westender1 // Jan 13, 2011 at 6:00 pm

  Good point Don Buchanan (#58)…with one clarification. For STIR development applications, the DCL’s are even lower than low – they are zero. Instead of paying 26% of the cost of growth, these projects pay 0%. Vancouver taxpayers are left to make up the missing revenue.

• 60 Claudia // Jan 13, 2011 at 11:21 pm

  Re: Clarifying the Cambie Line Station vs entire Corridor planning issue (subject of posts #55 & #56). Please refer to the link below re: initial Council approval for a Marine Drive Station (only) Plan process, in June 2006.

  http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20060627/documents/rr1.pdf

  Several things happened after this report was passed, which I believe may clarify how the planning process went from one station plan to an entire corridor plan (list not in chrono order):

  a. Civic Strike – 3 months
  b. Election of New Council
  c. Retirement of Planning Dept Co-Directors & most of the Senior Planning Staff
  d. New Planning Director & New Staff

  By the time things resumed and new folk got up to speed, it was 2008 – two years behind schedule – and the Line was scheduled to open by late 2009. The pressure to get things going was enormous.

  I would assume, but do not know as fact, that many (if not all) of the above factors contributed to the internal decision to shift the planning work from one station towards a Corridor approach.

• 61 Lewis N. Villegas // Jan 14, 2011 at 8:45 am

  The quality of the discussion here is proving the worth of the CHW effort. It is also proving that providing criticism (I prefer analysis) is not an easy thing to do well. Neither is writing urban design codes.

  I’ve re-read the HAHR document ostensibly written by the “new staff” (Claudia 60), and the design guidelines where I recognize handwriting and drawing styles of the retired “Senior Planning Staff”(Claudia 60). To no one’s surprise, they are both old paradigm planning.

  The key difference between the documents is that the former was not bold enough to impose 120 and 150 foot buildings on the very narrowly defined Vancouver historic area footprint, but the HAHR is ready to trash it.

  Anyone who believes that four towers is the last act, rather than the beginning of the end, has already drunk the Kool-Aid.

  Thus, the very core of our social heritage is on the chop block. In this light, it becomes very difficult to provide insightful comment, much less do it in blog-post bites.

  What the documents clearly reveal is a lack of understanding of the structure of urbanism. Since these are visual conceptualizations, the problem is magnified on those pages where the text piles up with fewer and fewer diagrams to show what the words are trying to describe. Urbanism is a visual language. This is more so the case with the HAHR document than the guidelines. But let’s not kid ourselves that the meagre presentations in the guidelines show much more than the first tentative steps taken towards understanding urbanism all over again in the decades following the onslaught of “Ground Zero” Modernism.

  Two examples will have to suffice.

  First, focusing on the architectural object is the tell tale mark that the principles of urbanism are not understood, much less in use. The HAHR “Urban Design Provisions” for example, are no more than a prescription for the subject building itself written in words that can mean anything you please. For example, at BC Electric Building (1929) at 425 Carrrall, “Ensure no further shadowing of Pideon Park” or “Respect the culturally important sites along Pender and Carrall Streets”. The first way to “respect” cultural heritage it to build in the same vein. What are we to expect from the Tower masters let loose in our midst? The urban fact is built from the collectivity of individual buildings, and it is this meta-architectural reading that separates the two disciplines (architecture & urbanism—planning is here relegated to administrative & political functions, and engineering to traffic management).

  Second, the vision of both guidelines and HAHR is all about zoning as “bubble diagram”. There is not a single attempt I can find where a diagram or a plan is trying to understand the effects of the urban construction on the imagination or experience of a single human being, much less the collective of the resident population, and those that will come, visit, and stay. The pictures they draw and the city I know occupy two different worlds.

  If you want the low water mark in Vancouver Urbanism mark this date down: 20 January 2011 when this document goes to Council for a rubber stamp.

• 62 Nelson100 // Jan 16, 2011 at 3:26 pm

  To Mr. Geller’s comment,

  “The speakers seemed to be advocating that Vancouver should be more like Paris. It is too late to try and turn Vancouver into Paris. Furthermore, I don’t think we should.”

  WHY NOT??? Why on earth would we not want to model Vancouver on arguably the most desirable city on the world? On basis does he argue that it is too late to plan our young city on European urban planning m0dels? European cities significantly outperform N. American cities on environmental statistics and many would argue they are significantly more livable. What is our model, Houston? Shanghai? Dubai?

  I also challenge Sean Bickerton’s and Geller’s assertions that high rises have the lowest ecological footprint. Buildings with poor R valves that require air conditioning to be habitable have no hope of being considered green in any sense, LEED or not. The endless attempt to spin tall glass boxes as green is wearysome. I challenging anyone making these claims to provide evidence from a credible source. The city’s own studies do not support this claim.

• 63 Deacon Blue // Jan 16, 2011 at 11:47 pm

  “I also challenge Sean Bickerton’s and Geller’s assertions that high rises have the lowest ecological footprint.”

  Nelson100

  What are you going to say next, Nelson? That Vancouver cannot become the Greenest City In the Globe if we keep building glass towers??

• 64 Nelson100 // Jan 17, 2011 at 2:26 pm

  Deacon Blue – Vancouver has no hope whatsoever of meeting “greenest city in the world” goals if we focus on building glass towers in the style of recent years.

  If we were to amend the Vancouver building code to require that that towers:
  have non-glass insulated surfaces for say 65% of exterior wall space, require that windows be shaded, require windows be openable to provide airflow, and eliminate air conditioning (obviated by these design features and our mild climate) then high rises could certainly be a component in the city achieving greenest city goals.

  I invite all to comment on whether they would support these proposed amendments. Let’s see who genuinely advocates high rises for ecological reasons from those who might have other motivations (and tend to make green claims to speed project approvals and marketing).

  Here’s an example of a shaded window design from Chicago.

  http://inhabitat.com/solstice-on-the-park-shimmering-chicago-high-rise-made-for-shade/

Leave a Comment