Frances Bula header image 2
← →

More tree letters

June 9th, 2010 · 9 Comments

Dear Ms Bula

Your article “A heritage proposal that tiptoes around the tulip tree”  explains very clearly the perplexing situation facing the city councillors and threatening the immediate neighbours of Bing Thom Architects’ proposed development at 1245 Harwood.  However, I am surprised by your statement  “So far the proposal has generated little commentary pro or con, in the area”  which is quite far from reality.

I suppose that you talked to people living in the building north of  that tulip tree, a building that is mostly rental; or perhaps to people living in the Chelsea building at 1219 Harwood.  Their suites will not be affected by an 18 storey tower because the big tulip tree would hide it from their windows.  But this tower would completely block the sun from the town-houses complex at 1245 Harwood and on the south side of 1330 Jervis St. as well, while taking away outdoor privacy in courtyards and patios for both buildings;  on Burnaby street, the top storeys of #1290 will lose their view.  All that resulting in decreased value of those concerned properties.

And for what ?  Certainly not for increasing the number of rentals in the West End.  The suites in this 18 storey tower would be way too expensive for renters who are not looking at rents reaching $3000.00 a month for a 2 bedrooms.  The tower will just be another downtown expensive condominium when there is a lack of rentals in the West End.

So you can be sure that many people in the area are extremely concerned by this project and would rather have the tulip tree chopped down and the old house replaced by any decent 8-9 story building encroaching on where the tree used to stand.  Of course it will be a sad day when this beautiful tree dies or is cut down, but because of the 40% of its root ball on the neighbour’s lot, it is doomed anyway. Fortunately there are many tulip trees in Vancouver and in the West End, they will grow too.

Sincerely

Marie-Louise Miginiac

Dear Mr. Bula:

I have appeared before council re. redevelopment several times (this project is one of many of similar ilk), and we have sent many letters to council and planners as well on this particular project, when it came up to the design panel in 2008.  It was rejected then because the skyscraper design was thought to ruin the heritage value…

You are welcome to post these sentiments on your blog.

Arne Mooers


Categories: Uncategorized

  • scm

    http://www.emporis.com/application/index.php?nav=image&id=630035

    Bing Thom Architect rendering

  • david m

    ^ thanks for the render. let’s build this baby!

    the best thing about this project is that, like a couple other towers proposed in the west end, it brings some of the good urbanism that has developed over the past 30 years to an area stuck in a much earlier time.

  • Urbanismo

    david mSir, go to the library, pick out THE CANDIAN CITY St. John’s to Victoria: a critical commentary ISBN 0-88772-222-9.

    EcoCan has forecast rain for the weekend so use it for your enlightenment.

    Pop down to Library Square, that isn’t really a square (at least geometrically speaking), and seat yourself comfortably at one of the java joints and read: that is if you can concentrate amidst the racket.

    After about a few minutes you will come to realize, indeed, become excruciatingly embarrassed, by your misplace comment “thanks for the render. lets build this baby!“.

    That render little sir is just another perfidious example of how a talent less operative can wheedle his innocuous way into the spotlight, and probably make a fast buck on the way, with dishonest picto-graphics: first the apparent transparency is impossible structurally, and if it where, the occupants would soon shroud it for their privacy.

    Furthermore this is just another by-law response to the Westend type tower, of which there are many and very, very boring . . . and is most certainly not good urbanism if for the arbitrary set-back alone!

    So much for yet just another . . . need I go on.

    You will also come to realize that beatifying another mediocre talent is rapidly turning this quaint little accumulation of less than stellar building materials into what has become a FAILED CITY . . . yes I said failed city: of which, God knows, there are far too many on this much abused planet.

    You will also come to realize, sir, later on in your, about to be misplaced life, us the hoi poloi, have nothing to gain brown nosing those we erroneously perceive to be above our social station, and that it is bad for our health.

  • Bill Smolick

    It’s a tree. It will die. We can’t protect it forever.

    (Cough…cough…Stanley Park Hollow Tree.)

  • Dan Cooper

    “Cough…cough…Stanley Park Hollow Tree.”

    Whenever someone brings up that particular piece of wood, I can’t help but think of Monty Python’s old bit about the dead parrot, “If you hadn’t nailed it to the ground it’d be pushing up the daisies!”

    Yes friends, “THIS IS AN EX-TREE!” Ashes to ashes, and nurse logs to nurse logs.

  • some guy

    “Mr. Bula”?

  • East Vancouverite

    ” The tower will just be another downtown expensive condominium when there is a lack of rentals in the West End.”

    Yet when a new retnal apartment buiding is proposed in the West End it is rejected out of hand by much of the neighbourhood. “No” to new rental buildings, “no” to new condo buildings, “no” to renovations to existing rental buildings, and “no” to a rebuilt Beach Avenue concession/restaurant. The West End seems to the neighbourhood of “no”. New buildings do not stay new forever, nor do they command new building rents forever. Today’s reasonably affordable buildings were once brand new and expensive. Why is there such a disconnect about this simple truth?

  • Bill Smolick

    > The West End seems to the neighbourhood of “no”.

    You’re new in town?

    It has always been thus.

  • rf

    would anyone care as much if it was called a “Yellow Poplar” tree…..’cause that’s all it is.