Frances Bula header image 2

Little Mountain: Creeping forward slowly, but city-planning and community negotiations poisoned by the beginnings

June 27th, 2012 · 26 Comments

The first stage of the Little Mountain project — the huge remake of the city’s oldest public-housing site, our Regent Park — got approval at council today after five painful years since the province first announced it wanted to sell the land and use the profits to replace the existing social housing on the site and build more elsewhere.

As people said in my Globe story today, it was a deal that set the stage for a poor negotiation from the beginning and it continues to permeate any discussions with bad feelings.

Why?

1. No one knows what the purchase price was or the agreement with the successful developer, Holborn. Even city councillors and staff don’t know. Why the big mystery? When the city sold its land to Millennium for the Olympic Village, as sidways as that went, at least everyone knew what Millennium paid and what the conditions were.

2. Existing residents were all “strongly encouraged” to move offsite to other BC Housing units, which was widely perceived as unnecessary and destructive for what had been a strong community.

3. All discussions have been overshadowed by the sense that the community needs to agree to a density that will work for the developer’s pro forma.

All of which has led many observers to say that, if and when the province moves on to re-developing other social-housing sites, as it inevitably will,

1. The city and community planning and agreements at least about height and density should come first, before any sale.

2. Re-development on large sites should be phased

3. The public should know what the financial arrangements are

and, many would add

4. The province shouldn’t be selling the land at all, but leasing it, the way that other public bodies with a valuable land resources, like the local universities, are doing.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Connie Hubbs

    Could the Vision Council have done more at the time? I know that they would say they had little choice and that may be true. Also, the media seemed to be pressuring Vancouver mayor and council to ‘play nice’ with Coleman & co.
    Rich Coleman made it very clear he does not support affordable housing (not supportive housing) and had a privatization agenda.
    It was a very sad needless loss of community for as yet no benefit to anyone except possibly the developer. As Bula says we do not actually know the details. FOI please!

  • Frances Bula

    @Connie. Well, one of us journos could try, but my strong hunch is that it would come back with everything blacked out, claiming that large sections were exempted because of third-party interests or important financial details or some such thing.

  • Tessa

    I keep hearing stories about how the money the province made on selling the land is going to pay for social housing elsewhere, but does anyone know specifically which social housing was built because of that money? I think they should have increased the amount of social housing on-site, and that any major sale of a site currently used for social housing should include specific requirements about the types of housing to be built – that is, they shouldn’t be allowed to build only luxury units in the market housing and thus increase gentrification of not just the social housing site but the whole neighbourhood.

    Of course this site should have been redeveloped. The existing units had a strong community but were older and it fit poorly into the existing neighbourhood. But it could have been redeveloped in a way that strengthened the community and the neighbourhood, resulted in a reasonable increase in density (10 storeys similar to Arbutus would be absolutely ideal) and increased the amount of social housing available.

    Clearly the province was never interested in community benefit.

    All the recommendations listed by F. Bula make absolute sense, and first and foremost the disclosure of the amount of money paid. As far as the developers crying foul, without giving that information I see their efforts as nothing but blackmail. If they overpaid for the site, that’s their problem. Let them go bankrupt. It’s not the job of city residents to bail them out.

  • Mira

    Connie…
    “Could the Vision Council have done more at the time? I know that they would say they had little choice and that may be true. Also, the media seemed to be pressuring Vancouver mayor and council to ‘play nice’ with Coleman & co.”
    What a bunch of lies you are spreading.
    The Vision council and mayor were in on it from the very start. They are directly responsible for destroying the oldest Coop in Vancouver. Period!
    Plus… the Holborn campaign contributions were well received!
    So… please, no more of this!

  • Rick

    this is another in a number of stories where there seems to be a serious failure in the Planning deprtment, either policies aren’t being followed (in which case there should be a thorough sweep out the bad exercise there), or they are being told not to follow their policies, in which case there should be a thorough investigation of City management.

  • Frank Ducote

    Tessa@3 – I’ll take a crack at answering your question. In Visions’ first term, one of the very first big announcements was that the Province, (through Rich Coleman), the private sector (represented by now-deceased Virgina Green) and the City (the Mayor) were going to spend over $200 million on core need housing, particularly for addressing the (street) homelessness initiative. Almost all of this money was to come from province through the sale of the Little Mountain site to private developers, with the private sector kicking in some as well.

    Replacement rental units on site is a condition of rezoning required by the City. Obviously these will be much smaller than the demolished units, which were of a size designed for families with children. A question that always arises in these matters is, who decides who gets to have first crack at these new units. Will the former tenants be given a choice, for example?

  • Tessa

    @Frank Ducote #6

    Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn’t aware that’s where the money was coming from for those sites.

    If it’s true that the new units are smaller than the previous units and, more specifically, not designed for families with children, then I would argue that is not properly replacing the previous units. They should be replaced with similar units, not SRO’s.

    @Mira #4: this project was begun under the previous NPA dominated council, not Vision. And it was the province that acted and screwed up, as this is provincial jurisdiction. It’s not any council’s screw up in actuality, so please find another thread to delve into ideological mudslinging.

  • Frances Bula

    @Frank and Tessa. My understanding is that the developer has to re-build the social-housing suites at least to the same number of bedrooms as were there previously. I’m not sure about the square footage, but if there were 100 three-bedrooms, then there has to be 100 new three-bedrooms, etc.

    And it’s not a requirement of the city. It was the province’s condition of selling the land that the social housing units be rebuilt, likely in the full knowledge that the city and residents would go nuts if that wasn’t at least there as a minimum condition.

  • Frank Ducote

    Frances – if true, I’m happy to stand corrected. Providing more 3 bedroom units everywhere in the city is a very good idea.

    However, let’s give credit where it is due – the City of Vancouver is the first municipality in the region to have a policy to require replacement of rental unit with rezonings, and other jursidictions have since followed suit.

  • Frances Bula

    @Frank — that’s true, but for private rentals. That’s what happened with the Ledingham McAllister redevelopment on Fraser Street. It’s a whole different ball game with social housing that the province owns.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    This is another example where we could have used row houses we back then. At a GFSR of 2.0 (gross floor area or ‘space ratio’) row houses save all the circulation space and expense (elevators, stairwells, corridors). That is typically between 15% and 20% of the total building area.

    Thus, for an apples-to-apples comparison, we would add 15% to the row house GFSR and come up with an equivalent of 2.3 GFSR. THAT number, is close to what staff and the community group were settling on.

    Keep in mind that all the cost of corridors, stairs, and equipment is saved. Then, consider that a better neighbourhood results when we have ground oriented units with doors on the street.

    Finally, there is the dawning realization that when we contract with off-shore developers we seem to be getting the wrong products.

    Better to keep most development in the neighbourhoods of a building type that we can handle with our local forces.

    This is a case in point where small is beautiful, but still delivers the density we’re after.

  • FactChecker

    Hi Lewis – I see you are once again suggesting that townhouses (or rowhouses) can be built at 2 FSR. As I’ve asked before, where can I find townhouses built in the city at 2 FSR? All the examples I can find are between 1 FSR and 1.2 FSR. When I looked for examples in Montreal they also seem to be around 1 FSR – in other words the total floorspace of the building, and the area of the site are about the same.

    Little Mountain is in total just over 15 acres of land, and the developer has to provide the internal streets, spaces (and it would seem from the plans, a canal as well). The adopted Policy Statement sets a range of between 1.5 and 1.67 million square feet of total development to be built – 2.3 to 2.5 FSR gross. If we assume an average unit size of 1,000 square feet then that suggests around 1,600 dwellings – so just a bit over 100 dwellings per acre. (that number will be higher if the unit sizes are smaller).

    All the townhouse examples I can find in Vancouver are less than a third of that density – the Grand on Oak is 31 units on a one acre site, for example. Mosaic’s Tisdall townhouses were built at 32 per acre. Those are both 1 FSR examples. Michael Geller’s recent report on Affordable Housing suggests it might be possible to get to 1.2 FSR – but that’s a net figure (in other words, just calculating the land to be built as housing – not gross, including all the streets, open space and canals as the 2.5 FSR at Little Mountain).

    So I think Little Mountain will have a density about three times greater than the typical actual (not theoretical) rowhouse projects in Vancouver.

  • Frank Ducote

    Further to the two preceding postings, I co-led a SCARP urban design studio a few years ago that looked at this large site. We set an arbitrary upper limit of 2.0 fsr to test the students imaginations.

    Nobody could produce a scheme that avoided at least mid rise buildings, and some higher than that. Protecting the magnificent mature trees and trying to have sensitive scale traditions to nearby single family areas pushed heights uncomfortably high.

    Introducing internal access drives, which most tried to avoid, drove heights even higher.

    True townhouses were out of the question.

  • Roger Kemble

    Oh how I well remember when Little Mountain was being built: a time when BC lumber was at its best.

    Western frame timber construction should, well maintained, last well over one hundred years, or more: which should have given that community thirty/forty years more life.

    It was demolished for ideological reasons: ideology is very bad motivation!

    That plan has changed many times: the latest a complete diversion from the last open house which tells me the architects do not have confidence in what they are doing!

    This onslaught of Asian money started with the sale of the Expo land in 1989 . . .

    http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/6urbandesign/2010.pdf

    . . . when the province foolishly (lead by its flawed ideology) sold off half the town, much against the sage advice of the local development/construction industry: the excuse being local capacity to build such a large project was not there.

    Well as it turned out there was and is the capacity to handle large projects and the secret was/is incremenatlization.

    Had the ex-Expo lands been incrementalized and developed by the many competent, local developers we would not have the ugly monster in place today.

    Indeed, we may have had a series of integrated, indigenous communities.

    Sir Ka-shing Li, GBM, KBE, JP and other China Coast operators learnt their predatory techniques well from their British over lords: Jardine Matheson et al.

    How well I know that 200-year-old organization: it offered me a job before I came here. I declined not realizing I would see them again on the northern shores of False Creek.

    There is a solution to our ridiculous housing costs, bad planning and obeisence to our off shore pay-masters if our beautiful people have the gonads to pull it off: kick all the off-shore predators back to where they came from.

    Give our indigenous planning, architectural development/construction industries a chance to develop incrementally here at home: build a local capital base and expertise accordingly!

    After all, it was US who taught THEM in the first place.

    What on earth has Frances’ Minneapolis junket taught her that she should have known already?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    FactChecker

    2.0 FSR (GFSR—wer’re counting the roads & squares in the site area not just the private land parcel) is the upper limit for human scale urbanism according to some.

    OV is a prime local example of what happens when you push too high on an formula that is not set so much in history as in the human experience of place… as tested through the ages.

    A. Lets do the math (100 16.5-foot lot; 50 street; 15 foot lane—historic examples):

    —2.0 GFSR begins with a 4,500 s.f. building

    B. Increase lot depth (125 x 16.5-foot lot; 50 street; 15 foot lane—historic examples):

    —2.0 GFSR begins with a 5,200 s.f. building

    C. Lets change the GFSR (100 16.5-foot lot; 50 street; 15 foot lane):

    —1.5 GFSR begins with a 3,300 s.f. building

    D. Increase lot depth (125 16.5-foot lot; 50 street; 15 foot lane—historic examples):

    —1.5 GFSR begins with a 3,900 s.f. building

    Remarkably, the platting for these schemes is more or less identical (that’s the lesson to learn from history).

    To move from 2.0 to 1.5 requires lopping off a floor. Remove another half-storey and the quality of the resulting urbanism changes again. Take off too much and we’re back in the ‘burbs. However, 1,200 and 2,000 s.f. row house schemes are out there, some in charming neighbourhoods (but you gotta go farther east than Toronto, and often right across The Pond).

    As we boost the GFSR beyond established norms and precedents, we deliver mean streets and—at OV—hard-to-move product.

    There is a new four storey row house in a block in Montreal just around the corner from Place Roi (a square) that comes in around 4,000 s.f. A neighbour on the other side of the lane on the same block is closer to 3,000 s.f. Both buildings were finished in the last 5 years. The smaller one has a retail unit fronting the square. The square was platted in the mid-to-early 19th century when that city was Canada’s leading urban centre.

    The numbers in the table above are a “starting point”. The opportunity furnished by a large site is wasted on a big pond where people can’t walk…

    Human scale urbanism is focused around squares and urban rooms. These will take a toll on the density unless we exclude them as park space (BTW—is the water body at LM counted in the density number?).

    The final analysis the scheme I saw was not ‘good’ urbanism. Let’s hope we can do better next time around.

  • Frank Ducote

    Getting back to the thread – I think the financial proposal that won the property from the province was based on a density of around 3 fsr. Anybody who went through the effort of making a submission with a development team, as I did, found out pretty quickly that buildings got quite large as the overall density exceeded, say, 1.5, and certainly reached 12 storeys or more at 2.0 or so.

    The “successful ” developer seems to have made an overly optimistic and unachievable proposal, which the province gleefully accepted, perhaps under the erroneous assumption that the community and especially City Hall would just play along. A sad and expensive lesson for all concerned.

  • Elizabeth Murphy

    @ Frank, Tessa and Frances – Re: rental replacement units.

    The City of Vancouver’s Rate of Change bylaw requires replacement of existing rentals in RM, FM, and CD1 zones only. All other zones in the city do not require replacement of existing rental units.

    The Rate of Change bylaw only requires a 1:1 replacement ratio. There is no requirement to replace them with the same number of bedrooms or area square footage. Therefore, a large three bedroom rental townhouse could be replaced with a 320 sq. ft. bachelor suite SRO.

    The City of Vancouver’s Rate of Change bylaw was established decades ago and does not adequately protect existing rentals.

    For social housing sites the owner of the land (the province) can make whatever rental replacement requirements it wants with the purchaser/developer as part of any deal. If the province required the developer for Little Mountain to replace the social housing units with the same bedroom mix, that is over and above the City of Vancouver Rate of Change bylaw.

  • Roger Kemble

    Good morning Elizabeth @ #17

    The City of Vancouver’s Rate of Change bylaw requires replacement of existing rentals in RM, FM, and CD1 zones only. All other zones in the city do not require replacement of existing rental units.

    May I humbly suggest, Elizabeth, your suggestions are merely tinkering. Rental, 60%+/-, has been a fact ever since TEAM de-industrialized the city: foolishly following a popular world-wide fad!

    If rental is a problem, and I am sure it is, the issue is family housing affordability caused by lack of well-paying jobs caused by that de-industrializing and offshoring.

    I understand this is not a popular topic for an aspiring politician: such is our dilemma!

    Given that, for instance, the task force and round table on affordability comprised of, essentially, persons who are not affected, remote from the problem as they are, they see it as theoretical, and have little incentive to realistically address the underlying issues.

    So far as affordability is concerned, evidently according to prognostications . . .

    . . . we are in for a bit of fun soon!

    Another, less pervasive, by-product of tinkering is the abandonment, to all intents and purpose, of view corridors and the lack of attention to proximity, as evidence in the recent Swizz Real/Jameson House, conflict.

    So far as urban design is concerned, IMO, a more fecund approach to such conflict would be to by-law building envelope and figure-ground rather than FSR. It would also result in a more beautiful urban experience.

    My concern giving free range to off-shore developers is that, essentially, they bring nothing to the table: they borrow from our banks and ship the profits off-shore.

    Gossiping on line cannot do justice to such a massive world-wide problem . . .

  • Roger Kemble

    PS So far as the Task Force and Round Table are concerned, set up another committee and their work is done . . .

    The real world does not work like that . . .

  • Michael Geller

    I would like to repeat what Frank Ducote said above, because he is absolutely right. I was part of a team that pulled out because it was becoming obvious the Province was seeking a proposal at a density that would never be acceptable to the community, nor necessarily appropriate for the site or marketplace:

    Frank Ducote // Jun 29, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Getting back to the thread – I think the financial proposal that won the property from the province was based on a density of around 3 fsr. Anybody who went through the effort of making a submission with a development team, as I did, found out pretty quickly that buildings got quite large as the overall density exceeded, say, 1.5, and certainly reached 12 storeys or more at 2.0 or so.

    The “successful ” developer seems to have made an overly optimistic and unachievable proposal, which the province gleefully accepted, perhaps under the erroneous assumption that the community and especially City Hall would just play along. A sad and expensive lesson for all concerned.

  • Michael Geller

    Let me add that I am becoming increasingly concerned with a number of projects that are being approved with ‘financial justification’ rather than based on planning merits.

    Now I know this may sound odd coming from someone who is viewed as a ‘developer’, (and probably discounted by those who assume the worst of anyone who has ever been tagged a ‘developer’) but the fact remains, that as an architect and planner I like to think I have a good understanding of what built form at different FSR’s (net and gross) will feel like when a project is completed.

    I may be wrong, but I do predict that the Rize Development will feel too big for its site; the rental building at 1401 Comox will also seem too big; and the Marine Gateway project will seem out of place for many years to come.

    I especially worry about the redevelopment of Little Mountain…I have no problem with 10 to 12 storey buildings overlooking Queen Elizabeth park, but question buildings above 4 storeys along this section of Main Street, and worry about the interface with surrounding streets.

    On a different vein, I also worry about continuous mid-rise buildings along Cambie Street…there should be more variety with yes…higher density townhouse and stacked townhouse development in certain areas.

    I love Barcelona…but don’t think we should necessarily bring it to the entire Cambie Corridor.

    I need to take another look at the Little Mountain plans, but the last thing that I saw with lots of brick and an almost ‘New Brutalism” aesthetic is very worrisome.

    To conclude, it’s time to re-focus on the appropriateness of building form, while not ignoring affordabililty. But we should not allow economics to drive inappropriate densities.

  • Dan Cooper

    May I just add a hearty “Amen!” to Frances’s four proposals around any future developments.

  • Frank Ducote

    @Dan – easy to say but Fabula’s #1 would be really challenging to do in reality, taking 2-3 years (a full Council term?) for rezonings, and who would be the applicant?

    The other three suggestions are very supportable and probably feasible, IMO.

  • Michelle S of Mt Pleasant

    Micheal Geller @21

    You took the words right out of my mouth, this whole situation reeks of the inner corruption of Mayor Gregor and his lack of Vision.

    Mayor Gregor has created his little “task force on affordability” as merely a distraction from the fact that he continues to give Developers free reign to disregard and destroy communities.

    Community Plans are bs, they are never respected or designed to follow through on the wishes of the community. The MPCP is a perfect example and the Rize building is proof that money talks and community walks.

  • Roger Kemble

    Michael @ #21

    I may be wrong, but I do predict that the Rize Development will feel too big for its site; the rental building at 1401 Comox will also seem too big; and the Marine Gateway project will seem out of place for many years to come.

    You are not wrong!

    Indeed, I agree with you Michael but we must understand that these developments were subject to due process. In MP’s case the CLG was cognizant of the proceeding from the beginning.

    Furthermore out of a MP voting pop of some 20,000 +/- less than 300 persons chose to engage the public process.

    In any case, I suspect given the current world financial situation all these projects are in jeopardy: Rize probably the most vulnerable.

    As a member of the Mayor’s Round table you will no doubt be rejoicing in the current down trend of local real estate.

    In which case would suggest you wait and see the long term outcome: the most potent being economic distress with a pop unable to buy at any price . . .

  • Roger Kemble

    PS

    . . . and as Vancouver continues to abuse itself . . .

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/proposed-complex-would-pump-life-into-dead-zone/article4391250/

    . . . can a backlash be far behind?