A lot of the time it doesn’t feel worth it. I was pretty irritated about the Opsal steel development getting 24 floors out of fixing up the old Opsal Steel barn. Yeah the barn nice I guess, but at 24 floors the building is about twice the height of everything else in the OV.

I love Vancouver’s heritage areas more than any other part of the city but there’s got to be a line where it’s not worth it.

What is Vancouver like in comparison to other cities? Does Vancouver quickly fold to developers or are they good at playing hardball? It feels to me the former.

There will also be a property tax hit for the city. It will lose commercial space which generates positive income for the city and instead replace it with residential which costs the city more then it brings in. Developers do not like to build commercial there is no suprise there, but the city straved for metro core job space shouldn’t be allowing any project that is removing commercial space, at the very min it should require replacement 1 for 1 but ideally increasing it on each and every application.

@Francis, Another proposed buiding at 1569 West 6th goes to Public Hearing tomorrow night. Unlike the Hornby site above where 11 submitted comments the West 6th proposal attracted many visitors to the Open house and more returned comments as summarized by Planning in the Policy Report:
PUBLIC INPUT
Public Notification and Open House — A rezoning information sign was installed on the site on January 7, 2010. A notification letter and invitation to a public information open house, dated January 6, 2010 was mailed to 1,198 surrounding property owners. The open house was held on January 21, 2010, at the Granville Island Hotel with staff and the applicant team present. Approximately 83 people attended. The City of Vancouver Rezoning Centre webpage provided notification and application information, as well as an on-line comment form.
Public Response—Public responses to this proposal have been submitted to the City in the
form of open house comment sheets, letters and emails. A total of 157 responses plus two
petitions were received, the majority of which were opposed to the proposal. Concerns expressed by those opposing the application focused primarily on height and view
impacts, shadowing of neighbouring buildings, and liveability impacts such as privacy issues,
increased traffic, and increased use of local amenities. A more detailed summary of
comments is provided in Appendix F.

Going to Appendix F provides more info on these comments
2. Public Consultation Summary
Public Notification and Open House — A rezoning information sign was installed on the site
on January 7, 2010. A notification letter and invitation to a public information open house,
dated January 6, 2010 was mailed to 1,198 surrounding property owners. The public meeting
was held on January 21, 2010, at the Granville Island Hotel with staff and the applicant team
in attendance. Approximately 83 people attended. The City of Vancouver Rezoning Centre
webpage provided notification and application information, as well as an on-line comment
form.
APPENDIX F
PAGE 3 OF 6
Public Response—Public responses to this proposal have been submitted to the city as
follows, noting that staff have not cross-referenced names in order to ensure that duplicate
responses have not been provided:
• 59 comment sheets were submitted in response to the November 2009 public information
meeting with 47 opposed, 10 in favour and 2 uncertain responses.
• 98 letters and emails from individual households providing comments with 93 opposed and
5 in favour.
• Two petitions, with a total of 106 signatures opposing the development.
Concerns expressed by those opposing the application are summarized below:
Height — Many respondents felt that the proposed tower is of an inappropriate height and out
of scale in the context of an area of mostly low-rise buildings and that the development
should be more consistent with its surroundings. Some people believed that the maximum
height limit in this area is three storeys and saw the proposal as a significant increase in the
height restrictions. There were suggestions regarding appropriate height that ranged from five
to eleven storeys, or up to a height of up to 100 feet as recommended by the area guidelines.
The proposed height was seen to be an unacceptable example of “height creep” and it was
felt that the proposal does not appropriately maintain the slope of buildings from Broadway
down to False Creek.
Views — It was felt that the skyline would be changed significantly with the introduction of
the proposed building, and that it would start a trend of building a ‘wall’ of buildings which
will have a negative impact on views from adjacent buildings. Many felt that they had paid
for their views and that their existing private views should be protected. Residents from the
taller buildings in the area, as well as the building immediately to the east, indicated that the
proposed building will lead to a loss of views or will interfere with their current views in a
substantial way, particularly towards the downtown, the mountains, English Bay and Stanley
Park, as well as views of the annual fireworks. Property owners felt that this view loss would
impact their property values.
Shadowing — There were concerns that the proposed building would result in a loss of
sunlight for the neighbouring buildings, impacting the quality of life of those residents and
effecting property values. Residents of 1529 West 6th (east of the proposed building)
expressed concerns that building would shadow their courtyard with its planters and
vegetation, and their west-facing balconies. Residents of 1562 West 5th (north of the
proposed building) expressed concerns regarding shadowing of their eight south-facing
balconies and kitchen/living areas, their courtyard, and six private roof decks. There were
also concerns expressed by residents of 1450 West 6th and 1483 West 7th (east of Granville
Street) of shadowing, sun blockage and loss of late afternoon light.
Privacy — There is concern by neighbouring residents that the tower would create over-look
issues, for both indoor and outdoor spaces, reducing the ability to have peaceful and private
enjoyment of their property. Concerns were expressed by residents of 1562 West 5th that the
proposed building’s balconies and outdoor amenity area are 25 feet from the property line
and immediately adjacent to the south side of their building which has 12 bedrooms.
Residents of 1529 West 6th expressed concern that there is no proposed screening to maintain
privacy and that the set back is minimal on the east side of the proposed development.
APPENDIX F
PAGE 4 OF 6
Parking — Some felt that inadequate parking was being provided by the development and that
this would create critical parking problems in an area where there is already a parking
problem. With regard to parking access, residents of 1529 West 6th expressed concerns about
the existing easement connecting their parking garage with that of the proposed building at
1569 West 6th. It was felt that there would be too much traffic going through their parkade.
There were also concerns that this would lead to an increased risk of property damage and
break-ins, and increased risk of collision with each entry and exit to the building.
Traffic — It was noted that this is already a very busy area and concerns were expressed that
having more people or businesses move into the neighbourhood would result in increased
traffic, congestion, accidents, and noise. There were also concerns about increased traffic in
the north/south lane west of Granville Street, resulting from vehicles accessing the
underground parking through this lane. It was noted that the lane is used for commercial
access and loading, as a garage entrance for 1529 West 6th, and as a pedestrian thoroughfare,
and was described as a bottleneck for both commercial vehicles and pedestrians. Business
owners were concerned about impacts on their businesses with regard to deliveries. There
were also concerns about the increased risk to pedestrians who use the laneway as a direct
link between the bus stop on 5th Avenue and Granville Street. It was generally felt that an
additional 60 cars using the lane was untenable.
Public Benefit — There were concerns that the increase in population represented an impact
on existing community facilities the neighbourhood. It was suggested that the community
derived no real benefit from the increased density and that they would like to see an amenity
contribution for more park space, a community facility, or that the development should have
a component of subsidized housing. Some thought it was inappropriate to transfer density
from another community.
Other comments cited in opposition were that:
• the project would set a precedent for future development in the area;
• the character of the proposed building does not fit in with neighbourhood and will affect
the overall appearance of the surrounding area;
• lot is too small to accommodate a building of this height;
• the building is too close to the bridge off-ramp and will be a distraction to cars;
• additional retail uses not required as the area is already well serviced by retail properties;
• would prefer to see more retail on ground floor meeting daily needs of the
neighbourhood;
• location of the garbage and recycling for the proposed development as access to is
obtained through the neighbouring property;
• location of parking ventilation and retail structure which is less than 1 m from the east
property line; and
• construction noise and dust.
Comments received from those in support of the application are summarized below:
Density — Some respondents felt that the area can comfortably accommodate this scale of
building, and that the height and density proposed are reasonable and appropriate
particularly given the Verona and Manhattan buildings further up hill. It was commented that
more density is good and will make Vancouver a more “urban” space.
APPENDIX F
PAGE 5 OF 6
Other comments cited in support of the proposal were that:
• support increased density to decrease the density bank;
• nice that building will be built higher with more green space around it;
• the building is very attractive/aesthetically pleasing;
• disagree that the development will result (at 1529 West 6th) in shading of our courtyard,
impact privacy in an open courtyard concept building, or impact non-existent vegetation
in an already shaded courtyard; and
• support as it will bring more commercial business to the neighbourhood.

In summary, 157 Vancourites took the time to write the Planning department with 89% opposed to the project. This is Plannings response:
Concerns have been expressed by area residents about this proposal, particularly with respect
to the height and associated view impacts. Staff have assessed the application and conclude
that, in addition to fulfilling City and regional planning objectives, it represents an
acceptable urban design response to the site and context. Staff recommend that the
application be referred to Public Hearing and, subject to the Public Hearing, be approved
subject to conditions.
The conditions do not appear to porvide any change to the 153′ height of the project or just about anything else.
My question is this, if 157 comments (89% opposed) is not enough to cause Planning to revisit the project what is the right number, is it 500, 1000, 10,000 or some other number. Residents of Vancouver have to know whether attending an Open House for a prospective development and submitting a reasoned comment is going to make a difference. The Director of Planning is a professional, the buck stops at his desk, we need an answer.

1569 West 6th?
On a bike route no less.

And next to another viaduct that someone wants taken down.

All this constrution on Hornby may undo the planters, barriers etc. of the bike lane.

I’m staying on other streets like Burrard, Pender etc. with an aggressive stance on my bike trips.

Frances said in her story on the City Budget today that develpment fees coming in have lessened the deficit according to the city.
What is total for new residental houses, and what for apartments and retail builidings?
Are these the same ratios in Burnaby, Richmond, North Vancouvers?

Sorry Voony 8. I am in Anchor Point 3 & there is a wait list for parking even for owners & renters is even longer – 6 months +.

My opposition is not systematic, it is on an issue by issue basis. I would love to see Vision do something properly & if they do, I will support it.

Let’s start with the Hornby Lane. If a proper consultation process had been used within an appropriate time frame & the route selection criteria had not been flawed, I would support it. If Vision can come up with a fiscally responsible way to keep the social housing @ the OV & not require taxpayers or the PEF to be cleaned out, I will support it. If Vision stops misusing the spot rezoning process across the City &, in particular @ the gross misuse of heritage density transfer from 5.0 to 12.44 FSR [+150%] @ the 1304 Hornby, across the street form Anchor Point 3, spot rezoning @ Council tomorrow night, a PROPOSAL @ 5 + 0.5 to 0.75 [the normal 10% to 15% heritage density transfer], I would support it.

The weird thing is they just keep on rolling 1 outlandish thing after another week after week.

WRT density bonusing and the specific use of whatever amenity or funding arisies from it –
you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

– The Capitol had the biggest bonus at its time (could still be) – to give rehearsal space and classroom space to the VSO. But who cares about the VSO?

– R&R at Robson and Richards gave amenity space for “Art Starts” for kids art programs.

– The Melville gave space for Volunteer Vancouver.

– The MOndrian gave space for the Cotemporary Art Gallery.

– L’Hermitage gave space for SRO housing.

– Symphony Place built replacement public parking for the Orpheum (that should have epeople up is arms!!!)

Who’s to say whether heritage or culture is worth any more than the SRO housing at L’Hermitage.

Then again, who’s to say that the social housing at the Olympic Village – at $600,000 per unit – is worth it – or “good value”.

@ Bill McCreery #9 . . .

I am in Anchor Point 3 . . ..

Well despite your constant complaining over specious details IMO you are very lucky to be living in a very well designed urban building in one of the most favourable urban quartiers in the city: perhaps in Canada!.

Surely you do not believe all these number crunching Living in the West End #5 number crunchers have a clue to what the numbers are not sayin . . .

If you keep up your luck may just run out!

Living medium density, urban, requires some trade offs from, say, living in the country: you have not yet rationalized that conundrum.

May I suggest, at risk of boring you once more, my experience living in Centro, El Monstruo suggests you would not appreciate real urban living. And neither should you, you have chosen to live in downtown Vancouver.

You may yet be lucky though: all these monstrous pipe dreams coming off the drawing boards may not yet see the light of day: being of an isolated, medium sized, western conurbation Vancouver’s developers have yet to twigg to the tsunami coming our way.

Indeed all the . . . ridiculous heritage clones Robert Stern, the likes of Quinlan Terry, (faux sentimentalism is good for business if you have the money and Vancouver does not), give me the real thing, Sir John Vanbrugh any day, how long before he alights our ancient shores?

How long before Frances’ favourite architect Ricardo Bofill alights tambie?

The point being all the star shine in the world will not satisfy Bill’s insatiable thirst for rural tranquility at Drake and Hornby.

Parking will always be at a premium downtown. Traffic on your corner has always been hectic especially at rush hour.

I AM SORRY, THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR!!!. Nonsense, such emotional hyperbole is unbecoming.

Insisting you are not political: no Sir, I am not convinced.

You, and your chorus, (yes, I noticed the Hall-ista choir has been called off) are beginning to come across as a bunch of spoiled brats.

Indeed you, Bill, are debasing that very talented architect I once knew.

@ Bill #16

Well nowhere will you find a better example of “ . . . things like human scale, relative context, accessibility, being a good neighbour . . . ” than your Anchor Point. Ditto OV.

I cannot remember exactly, when AP was built? Sometime in the ’70’s!

Anyway we’ve had decades of good example to follow: atrium space, animated street wall/activity, warm masonry, chiaroscuro bay windows catching Sun and shadow.

Yet, in the helter-skelter of the fast buck all that is lost.

It goes beyond ignorance and lack of talent, definitely major factors, we have degenerated, rather, down to collective fear and (risking your style hyperbole) self-loathing (i.e. subliminally we do not believe we deserve better).

As for your loading bay! Yeah your griping is out of line: it’s weathered heavier traffic than bikes for decades. So . . . a moving truck crosses a yellow line for a couple of minutes . . . so?

You and Susan A are needlessly stoking the anti-bike-ista issue that, maybe not 100% satisfactory, but has come a long way since Gordon Price was the lone bike-ista in the wilderness.

Sure as hell I don’t condone that thing approved last night but I am not against hi-rise and density per se.

Lewis has made a cogent argument for the low rise and I for the atrium: last night that language may as well have been Sanskrit.

Even the miss named podium, ignoring street level privacy as it does, is better than the colourless stump.

You can thanq Beasley, FCN and the too soon to come NEFC, and his strutting ignoramuses for that.

And yes you never had it so good living where you are.

And now we have another generation of ignoramuses who just don’t know and don’t care: preferring to foul their bicycle saddles doing it in their Spandex.

We are like a pack of spoilt brats who have got most of what we want but cannot let go.

We may better keep quiet lest we spawn a back lash and loose it all.

Roger#17 – “As for your loading bay! … a moving truck crosses a yellow line for a couple of minutes . . . so?”
But it’s not a yellow line, it’s a concrete barrier and a continuous row of planters which means the moving truck cannot enter this area. And having the moving truck just block the eastbound travel lane doesn’t seem like a workable option (the last time I moved, it was much more than “a couple of minutes”).

No it’s not rocket science, but it relies on balancing needs in the community. And that has not been a “strong suit” as of late. The process of pouring the concrete in front of this existing loading area is well underway.

I would gladly give up the $270K portion of the CAC towards “public art” and put it towards the design and detail of a building form people would actually love and appreciate.

Residential structures shouldn’t just express its utilitarian function but somehow along the way, bland came to rule the day. I’m not sure if OV is the start of the next chapter or isn’t just more of the same, just more squat like.