Thank you Ralph. You are articulately clarifying not only the values and thought processes that need to be applied to this site but to many other’s as well. Your views on other projects, when appropriate, would also help to clarify discussions about them as well.

Your: ” … the modest goals of the present C-2C zoning, with its 35 ft. height limit, are not commensurate with the true potential of this key site. However, why must the pursuit of possible enhanced potential ALWAYS, it seems, translate into substantially greater height?”

leaves me to ask that before we as a City go headlong into willy nilly density and height increases across the entire City should we not be having a public discussion about what such density increases are about, why, or even if, they are necessary across the board and/or in certain locations, and what will be the net potential benefits and sacrifices? I am not aware that such a discussion has taken place since the introduction of the Sullivan and now Vision Van eco-density push and the citywide use of spot rezonings that have completely changed the game.

Interesting… I believe this is the property with the on again, off again VOTE VISION signs during the last election. The signs Vision got in trouble for because they were too close to an advance polling station.

Yet another example of Vision cherry-picking “their people” to get the ability to build in the city, regardless of if it’s good policy or not.

@Paul Tolnai, re: cherry picking those who can build:

Heark back to the post where Ralph notes the Urban Design Panel (presumably appointed by the Visionistas currently in power) voted against this application, again. This seems to work against your argument.

p.s. And a big “right on!” to the Panel members. As some have noted, it is true that higher buildings are allowed on Cambie south of 16th, so it is possible that some level of higher construction could be agreed as appropriate north of 16th also. Then again, the zoning changes south of 16th were made officially, and after a process of public consultations and discussions on an area-by-area if not block-by-block basis. If the 12th and Cambie site’s zoning is changed, it should be in the same way, not as a one off.

Why should we consider views of City Hall sacrosanct? Is that a true nod to heritage value, or a bow to political egos?

Everyman @ 58:
Yes, it is a nod to Heritage as the building is a designated heritage structure. But it is also a nod to the civic institution housed within, the democratically elected Council that, it is intended, acts in the public’s interest and the spirit of which the building has come to symbolize (for those who have not become too cynical). You are free to disagree with the actions taken by a majority of Council, speak out in public forum or in numerous other venues and take action yourself, within the law, to effect change, any of which, upon glancing up at City Hall, you may have been inspired to do. I find, personally, the view to City Hall, symbolizing the potential of our democratic system of civic government, to be more valuable than would be the view to the proposed building housing a hamburger emporium (no matter how good the Triple O Sauce!) and cookie-cutter speculative market condos that seeks to compete with and thereby diminish City Hall’s stature and what it symbolizes.

I’m not convicned about the view of city hall being important. After all, its not like the building is being torn down and that view is really just from downtown.

Besides, this project (as unattractive as it is IMHO) would merely clutter the view, not block it.

This inappropriate proposal (one of several such spot rezonings, including the approved Rize at Broadway and Kingsway and the STIR tower at 1401 Comox) has sparked a thoughtful discussion from Bill McCreery, Ralf Segal and others, which is really about the demise of land-use planning in Vancouver through the use of spot rezonings that bear little if any resemblance to existing zoning or design guidelines intended to shape rezoning proposals. Here are my thoughts on this broader topic (informed, in part, by my mother’s prescient wisdom):

If Vancouver’s Conditional Use Zoning methodology (also known as discretionary zoning) had been based on a low-density urban design paradigm (low density—good; high density—bad), a major revisiting of guidelines would make sense; but they were developed under Ray Spaxman and Larry Beasley to maximize density while ensuring acceptable performance, especially in regard to livability and neighbourhood context. Those considerations and standards are now being eroded and rationalized away by politicians and by planners that are beholden, either directly or indirectly, to special interests.

In Dark Age Ahead (2004), Jane Jacobs admired the opportunities for flexibility, diversity and suitable infilling afforded by Vancouver’s discretionary zoning, but with the following caveats:

“Discretionary zoning seems ideal, provided that its intents are practical and supported by an engaged citizenry. But I have serious reservations about it because it could be a disaster when administered by corrupt municipal government, or if planning is dominated by appeal bodies not responsive to citizens. Planners like discretionary zoning because of the opportunities it affords them to refine and fine-tune their visions. In Vancouver residents have raised complaints about standardized results and have objected that citizens are brought into the process at too late a stage. These reservations raise the root question: Who has discretion?” [Dark Age Ahead, “Notes and Comments,” pg. 217]

Sadly, this has largely proved prophetic. Complaints raised by residents since the EcoDensity Initiative (2007) have increased dramatically in frequency and intensity as planning and development decision-making has fallen victim to the systemic corruption of unchecked development industry influence and political patronage. The reference to “appeal bodies not responsive to citizens” relates to the Ontario Municipal Board, which is appointed by the province, and which, as a result of patronage appointments, was transformed from its original purpose—to ensure due process—into a virtual rubber-stamp for industry appeals of development decisions in Toronto and other municipalities. In Vancouver, Third Party Appeals through the Board of Variance (which was responsive to residents) provided a much-needed check on development industry influence, which, to quote Spaxman, is “immense.” But the appeal process was struck down by the BC Supreme Court on a technicality (ca 2006?). Vision Vancouver promised to apply to the province to reinstate the appeal process, but reneged on that commitment following the 2008 election.

Ned Jacobs #64

Yes, but isn’t this what all the prepubescent planners/ urban designers and all the lazy politicians and incompetent city staff lovingly call … Vancouverism!? LOL

Ned # 63
“Vancouverism” means different things to different people. That said, adherence to important performance criteria, some of which are referenced in conditional guidelines, is fundamental to the planning and development for which Vancouver is justly famous. My point is that as a result of development-industry influence (not the need to meet city-wide, regional or global objectives) performance is being seriously undermined.

Ralf Segal # 67
I agree with much of what you have to say. I won’t comment on the specifics of the Beach Towers infill proposal (because I haven’t studied it in detail), except that it took a huge effort from thousands of residents—who have much better things to do with their time—to force the redesign.

However, re 1401 Comox, it is my understanding that the approved tower is 4 storeys higher than the maximum under the discretionary guidelines. But that is almost beside the point. The guidelines were never intended to function as minimums; on the contrary, these are discretionary maximums to be considered provided various conditions, some site-specific, are met. The idea was not that there should be a tower on every block face; on the contrary, some places, like the 1400 block of Comox, are simply not suitable for a tower.

The following is excerpted from my presentation to council at the rezoning hearing for 1401 Comox. I knew by then that it was a “done deal” and my views (or anyone else’s) would make no difference in the decision because there is a “gentleman’s agreement” between developer-beholden councillors and the industry that once an application is referred to public hearing it is as good as approved (which is also why these same councillors get annoyed when scores of residents waste council time by insisting that they be heard). I spent many hours preparing these comments and waiting at the hearing because Jane taught me that if people become fatalistic and give up, then systemic corruption of the planning process is certain to get even worse:

Jane Jacobs visited Vancouver on a number of occasions. On one of these visits—as I recall it was in or about 2002—she was taken on an extensive tour by the planning department.

Afterwards, she told me that she was quite favourably impressed with the planning and development that was happening in Vancouver. One of the neighbourhoods she mentioned was the West End. She told me that she had learned that Vancouver had revised the zoning for towers in that area so that proposals for this form would be subject to specific conditions, such as building heights, separation and setbacks, provided the site was deemed, through urban design analysis, to be suitable for buildings greater than about 6 storeys. She also said that she had been shown a large area in the centre of the West End peninsula where little tower development had occurred due to developer preference for sites closer to the waterways that maximize views. It had been decided that this area, known as “the Valley” should be reserved for low and midrise building forms. There were a number of reasons for this, including a wish to preserve heritage buildings, the area’s diverse character, culture, and its human scale, which has allowed the West End, despite being one of the most densely populated districts in North America, to be highly livable, with a stable and loyal populace.

Jane told me that she had learned there was another important reason for keeping this modest-scale area intact, while judiciously permitting taller buildings on the margins. Views. Not views of the mountains or water—but interior views of the West End itself, for the benefit of residents and visitors. If even a sprinkling of additional towers were built in the Valley area, these would dramatically constrict the variety and extent of what could be seen of the West End from streets, parks, and from thousands of West End windows.

In 2009 I was asked by West End residents to advise them on a proposed tower that they were very concerned about. When I strolled around the block, and then around adjacent blocks, I recalled what Jane had told me, and realized that this was indeed in the heart of the West End’s human-scale “Valley”. Holding my hands in front of me above St. John’s I was able to get a pretty good idea of the views that would be blocked—not only from the street and lower windows of low and mid-rise buildings, but from the existing towers on the periphery. I was astonished at the degree to which neighbourhood views would be lost due to the imposition of this single tower, and how claustrophobic the result would be. I also had a new appreciation for the thoughtful planning that had put this area essentially out of bounds for towers. I was also shocked and dismayed that the city was even giving consideration to such a proposal.

Afterwards, when I met with the residents, I told them I thought they had good reason to be up in arms because, based on what I knew and had seen, this proposal is a major departure that shouldn’t be considered under the existing policy. I am not really surprised at the extent of the opposition, and large number of petitioners, because local residents would be intuitively aware of how degrading these impacts would be, even if they knew little or nothing about the urban design and livability considerations that had guided development here for several decades.

Gentlemen – the built form of the Comox development is a direct result of increased density. In this particular case, an increase from the zoned density of 1.5FSR has been QUINTUPLED to 7.5FSR. On top of which, no CACs were collected for local amenities to help mitigate the impacts of this outrageous level of density increase.

Unplanned and extreme magnitudes of densification without amenity is not good public policy. Is it any wonder that thousands of residents of the affected community resent these kinds of one-offs? Or that they desire an updated planning framework within which to consider development proposals?

I am fairly sure of one thing though: any new plan for the West End community will not validate the kinds of density increases that the STIR program has foisted on the community. And, further, that CACs will be restored for rezonings for provision public benefits and amenities within the plan’s framework. Amenity with density.

Ned Jacobs, Bill McCreery & Frank Ducote:

Just a few “adjustments” to statistics RE: 1401 Comox which in no way is meant to defend this project, because their is a serious problem here which I’ll get to momentarily.
The final approved height is 200 ft., which is 10 ft. higher (1 storey) than the max. (190 ft) that MAY be permitted under zoning. Final density is 7.19 FSR which is 4.8 times greater than the permitted 1.5 FSR. Separation (distance) of the tower from neighbouring tower across lane is 81 ft., meeting min. 80 ft. tower separation guideline. “Benefits” of project are: Provision of 186 market rental units, 35% of which are 2-3 bedroom units suitable for families AND public access (public right-of-way) to the landscaped open space/garden area on Comox frontage (28 ft. deep setback area).
Most people recognize the problem here, namely that the extent of the imposition of a 4.8 times density increase in the form of a high rise is not compensated for by the so-called benefit of market rental housing, however well intended and needed that housing is. This imbalance is a direct outcome of the STIR program wherein the incentive definition results in there being no increased value (zero “land lift”) to the increased floor area of rental (vs. condo) housing. As Frank points out, this means no Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) from the developer to pay for or provide on site a day care or library branch or community centre or non-market housing or cultural facility or heritage or purchase of parkland, etc. A further STIR incentive which this developer and others have or will receive is the waiving of the Development Cost Levy (DCL) that applies to all developments, in this case diminishing, by $1.4m, funds that the City would have had to apply to various public purposes.
There are several dozen examples, now in place or being built, of rezonings, even “spot” rezonings, wherein substantial density increases have been approved in exchange for clearly identifiable tangible public benefits. In these intensely negotiated sometimes highly controversial projects, the impacts and trade-offs of increased density were thoroughly and fairly quantified and acknowledged and then measured against the benefit(s) provided. Prior to STIR, in each and every one of these rezonings, the “value” to the community of the public benefit(s) provided could be justified when compared to the impacts of the increased density, particularly after extensive public consultation and improvements to the building form and design and often, density reduction were demanded.
Unfortunately, with STIR, this claim can no longer be made. The supposition that a four and five times increase in density adds ZERO value to a market rental development and that the rental housing in and of itself is the public benefit, is unwarranted.

Is it me or this thread have become the fifth set in a Wimbledon final?
Bill – Ralph 6-2 4-6 3-6 6-4 18-19 (40-15)… Bill serving?…

@Terry M #74
See Tom Stoppard’s play “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” (1966,1967)
“where this in Stoppard’s play is the verbal tennis game. The only thing allowed is a fresh question. Statements are out… repetitions are out; and rhetoric is out.”

Here it is the reverse. And you are out because you asked a question.