Bravo for adding some sane, rational thought to the situation. We also need to be clear as a City organization, if we intend to restrict owners’ ability to sell properties that should be up front and clear. The owner of the Waldorf is doing nothing wrong, against some policy or standard and neither is the company that bought it. If it was purchased by a individual or company not know to develop condominiums, would there be such outcry?

Thanks for the informed background, Trish. My hunch is, no staff member dares speak out to publicly clarify this or any other ituation, under the present regime’s ways of acting. Too scared and no upside, IMO.

I’m still looking forward to Mr. Jackson’s hopefully positive impacts on the culture of the planning department, to increase staff’s willingness to step forward and do their job. (Yoohoo, Brian!! Where art thou?)

Everything involving development seems to require a political response – or not – these days rather than a policy/planning/zoning one. At least when Brent Toderian or Larry Beasley was in office there would a person who could/would step up to publicly clarify matters. One may agree or disagree with the response, but at least would have been one. It is a shame that it took a retired staff person like yourself to do so.

A a deeper level, the bigger concern I have about municipal governance is about the way Council has been operating under the Vision regime, which more closely resembles a majority parliamentary structure and operation. Even non-Vision members of Council describe themselves as “the opposition.” What’s up with that?? This is not the traditional – theoretically at least – more inclusive consensus-building and, yes, messy model of civic governance, and we see the results and discontent around us almost every day.

Ms. French’s letter points out the problem with policies and politicians – policies are only as good as the people who enforce them. A new person is elected and acts on their own initiative without first exploring existing policy.
She points out the 955 E Hastings development – there is a DTES Housing Plan but no one is following the plan! Thus we get spot rezoning and communities on the street in protests.
It’s a poor model to use for good governance.

Well said, Frank, and thanks Ms French! Yes, for decades it would have been the Planning department quickly clarifying this situation and such like this – fast, no fuss. Now City Hall is clamped up so tight, no ones allowed to talk without Dr. Ballem’s scrutiny. Truth is less important than political advantage. And I haven’t seen anything different from Brian J – he’s part of that system, Penny’s guy fer sure. So Sorry Frank, don’t get your hopes up.

Sad.

Thanks to Frank Ducote:
“At a deeper level, the bigger concern I have about municipal governance is about the way Council has been operating under the Vision regime, which more closely resembles a majority parliamentary structure and operation. Even non-Vision members of Council describe themselves as “the opposition.” What’s up with that?? This is not the traditional – theoretically at least – more inclusive consensus-building and, yes, messy model of civic governance, and we see the results and discontent around us almost every day.”

Wow! Yes Frank you have nailed the problems so perfectly. Why don’t the media pick up on this? It is really scary they are ignoring this issue. Thx so very much for raising this. How can we get more media paying attention?

Trish’s analysis and Frank’s comments are bang on target. The point about a transition to a parliamentary structure and operation is highly significant and, until now, has been largely overlooked. Given that the Mayor and City Manager are from a context where “the government” is the dominant party in the “house” it is not surprising they have brought this model into the civic arena. Accordingly, Vision policy is City policy, whether or not a formal decision has been taken by Council , and the City Manager acts and gives directives on this basis. A profound shift in past City Hall practice and one deserving much greater scrutiny.

Frank, you say in public what staffers have been saying inside City Hall for 4 years now – its been referred to as “politicization” but its really about a provincial-ish way of thinking, “yes minister,” us vs them approach where staff have gone from smart confident professionals, to gun-shy, keep-your-head-down, speak-when-your-spoken-to people. The old-timers like me, anyway, who have been here for years with a lot of pride in our careers. The new people, Penny-hires, are just back-slappers and yes-people. Or should I say Yes-Penny-People.

“The bigger concern I have about municipal governance is about the way Council has been operating under the Vision regime, which more closely resembles a majority parliamentary structure and operation. Even non-Vision members of Council describe themselves as “the opposition.” What’s up with that?? This is not the traditional – theoretically at least – more inclusive consensus-building and, yes, messy model of civic governance, and we see the results and discontent around us almost every day.”

Exactly. Bang-on.

“At least when Brent Toderian or Larry Beasley was in office there would a person who could/would step up to publicly clarify matters.”

Very true, but there’s no place in Today’s City Hall for people like Toderian and Beasley, or Spaxman for that matter. Or Grey, or Andrews, or many others. They would actually speak, say what they think, and not worry about political credit, making one party look good and the others look bad.

Dead breed. Killed breed.

Thats not how things work anymore, don’t you know? We all know it in City Hall, and hoped people out there would care. But reporters aren’t writing about it, so who would even know to complain?

Frances, what do you think about Franks point? Why don’t reporters write about it? Its news, surely. Don’t you care?

Not with a bang, but with a whimper…

Frances (and other Vancouver journalists), I’d like to hear your response to Doug’s request @ 14.

Why aren’t the media writing about this, and as well, a host of other obvious significant, questionable Vision Vancouver practises such as: Where’s our tax money going and why? Why are bike lanes ploughed before vehicle lanes? Why is Council repeatedly ignoring Council approved policies and by-laws (the Zoning Bylaw for instance)? What are the criteria for hiring new staff? What happens to staff reports between the staff writing them, Penny and co. ‘massaging’ them and daylight? Are public consultation efforts real or just going through the motions? Why are transit estimates wildly skewed to ensure the favoured option looks good?

I had hopes that Jeff Lee, and for that matter you would do the investigative research to get answers to these and many other questions that come up week in and week out.

On the other hand Doug, there’s always the tried and true custom of brown envelopes pushed under a friendly door. Is it that Balem has every staffer so afraid that even that is not possible?

Thank you Waltyss 17 for worrying about whether or not I’m going to run in 2014. It takes a great load off my shoulders. As well, I’m no more interested in keeping my name out there than you appear to be. That has never been my motivation for commenting publicly. Discussing issues and ideas is and I’ll continue doing so in spite of your intimidation tactics.

Not sure what you mean by the “the NPA approach which was if anything more controlling when you ran for them?”. I ran with the NPA because they recommend good candidates who will make independent decisions. Finally, evidently you were not privy to what happened inside the NPA campaign Waltyss because in fact I did strenuously question the “NPA approach”.

Chris, ask those, including apparently Cllr. Afflect, who had to drive in the bike lanes because the vehicle lanes weren’t ploughed.

NPA desperately needs a re-branding, and it’s not going to win my vote back by latching on to the leg of issues like plowing.

“Chris, ask those, including apparently Cllr. Afflect, who had to drive in the bike lanes because the vehicle lanes weren’t ploughed.”

It’s true! Just ask my colleague!

Waltyss – I’ve been at City hall a long time, and have my own complaints about the NPA (can you say municipal strike?) – BUT the NPA did NOT have a similar or worse approach, that i ever saw, to the issues I and Frank Ducote have raised.

Whatever else they are or were, they understood and respected Staff’s role, in my experience, and it wasn’t anywhere near as controlled, wasn’t politicized that I saw, wasn’t like a Ministry under them. All these things are new, and unique to the Ballem era. Callin it like it is.

But before Bill McCreery starts bragging and thanking me, he himself does not have a good reputation for these things with Staff. His rep with Staff I’ve talked to is that he disrespects us, misquotes us, and takes every opportunity for political points even if he has to slam staff to do it. From what I’ve seen, thats a Bill trait, not an NPA trait.

I ain’t political. I’m a Staffer. Callin it like I see it, and like I’ve heard it.

Bill:

I saw the media coverage. The claim remains bogus and unproven. There’s no evidence bike lanes were prioritized ahead of vehicle lanes. They are part of the city’s first batch of roadways that get plowed. Here’s the link:

http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/snow-removal-from-city-streets.aspx

Are you suggesting I am paid to post? ROTFLMAO

It’s time to stop playing politics with cyclists’ safety. One would think the NPA would have learned this lesson by now, but you seem to be one member of the party eager to accelerate the death spiral.

Didn’t see any plows of either kind but last week the bike lane along Burrard st (Hastings-Canada Place) was very heavily salted while neither Burrard/Hastings/Cordova/Canada Place were. I thought it was humourous and even considered taking a pic, it was so salted that it looked like a thick layer of frost.
Back onto the topic, do we know if Waldorf productions left the property in pristine condition? My understanding is they had sunken a lot of money into the building, did they remove some of the improvements they made?

Typical. When faced with a direct question and the expectation for some semblance of evidence on a topic brought up by the original poster no less, said individual attacks the motivation of the person making the enquiry.

Mr. McCreery: You are doing a good job of proving the accuracy of Insider Doug’s comments at #24.
Simple question, really, what evidence do you have that the bike lanes were a priority over the plowing/salting of roads? Hope the question is not too bullying or intimidating.

Bill, I want you to know I’ve talked with a few other key staff, before writing this reply to your long comment, to make sure I’m being accurate (fair?? not sure what right word is) in how i describe at least some staff’s feelings/observations. Having said that, the comments are my own…

My reference to “bragging” was about thinking you might chortle (am i using that word right??) about the fact I was saying that the new politicized City Hall was a Vision/Ballem thing, and not an NPA thing, and use it to start another “my party is better than your party” thing.

But now that you mention it, I’ve heard many times that you kinda overstate your short involvement in the 70’s about the Seawall, etc… (I’ve been around a long time, but not that long, so i dont know personally) so maybe bragging is the right word. Maybe you had an influence, maybe you were “just there” on Park Board but either way, that was the 70’s, and the rest of the politicians from that that era have moved on… what have you done lately?

As for the Staff relationship, you say:

“In the present politically charged atmosphere at City Hall unfortunately it appears to many citizens, not just me, that staff are being coerced to carry out their duties in ways that some might consider to be compromising. I point out that there have been former staff and even some still there who have directly or indirectly confirmed this here and to me personally. As well, I understand some staff have left or taken early retirement.”

There is truth to that, as all readers here know – but staff are working really really REALLY hard to maintain their professionalism in this new Ballem regime. Some great people left, or were firmly pushed out, people I really respected even though by your comments above, you apparently didn’t. We want the other great ones left, to stay.

You are not seen as an ally/helpful voice to staff in this. I suppose thats not a surprise, since i doubt that was your goal.

You are seen to make it harder, worse, spreading unfair negative messages, gossip – at absolute best, your own opposition group’s perspective as “truth,” – at worst strategically lying or exaggerating? I hope not. Either way, weakening the respect and positioning that good staff are trying to maintain in order to do a good job for everyone.

You have not been helping, and that is why you are seen as part of the problem. However you chose to justify your approach, thats how its seen.

The way you once again characterized staff’s work above, is a good example. You’re doing it again. Should I give you the benefit of the doubt and say this is your honest perspective of these events with staff, and not scoring political points with the communities and opposition groups that i understand you tend to frequent? Sorry, I trust Staff’s account of these events more than yours.

Its not because you’re “the messenger” – Its because you’re not a credible one. The stories you tell above, which we’ve heard before, have been refuted by staffers of higher integrity and credibility than you (but who aren’t able to fight back either publicly or through social media) – so you are not believed.

Other people, including community members, have called you out on this site, doing better jobs than I am doing now (such as in the marine & cambie situation, i recall), so its not just a staffer observation.

So now, I’m the messenger. To you. Go ahead and shoot me, if you want. But its the truth as i see it, and I’m not alone, so you might choose to seriously think about it, if you want to hold office again, and have a working relationship with Staff. Or even if you don’t.

You’ve used this site as a pulpit for a while – well, live by the sword, die by the sword.

If you really do what you do because you care for this city, as you say, I commend that. But you can do it differently.

So I see in the latest Globe and Mail gentrification promotion that the Acme garment factory on the block to the east of the Waldorf will become one of the Loblaw supermarkets.
I can foresee many car crashes (Never Accidents) at those intersections and wild confrontations with the “customers” supercilious security guards, worse if they try 24 hours as they have done recently.

Meanwhile Boffo, friend of Bosa, and developer of a dead Tuscan-style 4-storey walkup last months in north Burnaby, is taking the 500 block Cordova site and putting up a condo with maybe 5 low-rental units. There is a hint that they might be 600 sq. feet, 56 sq. metres.
“Renumbered” 555 East Cordova, it is on the north-side, a hop and a skip from Oppenheimer Park.

A developer makes a cautious foray into Vancouver’s hardscrabble heart
by Kerry Gold. Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Feb. 01 2013, 11:39 AM EST
Last updated Friday, Feb. 01 2013, 11:45 AM EST (in print in Saturday’s paper)

theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-estate/a-developer-makes-a-cautious-foray-into-vancouvers-hardscrabble-heart/article8105966/?cmpid=rss1

…”Last summer, the Boffos purchased an empty lot at 555 Cordova, a street where prostitutes hang out, down the street from a soup kitchen. It’s on the fringes of Strathcona, and between the growing Hastings Corridor and downtown. It will be central and affordable enough to attract the young urban crowd.
“We are targeting the cheapest price per square foot in Vancouver, around $385,” says Mr. Boffo. “We’re excited, because it will be a different model, a small, repeatable project that is putting non market and market on the same site.”
It’s also within the heart of the downtown eastside, known as the Downtown Eastside Oppenheimer district (DEOD), where there’s a dense low-income population, between Hastings to the south, Alexander to the north, and along Cordova to the east. In that particular patch, there is special zoning that has long required new residential housing to include 20 per cent non-market housing. The 20 per cent rule, as well as the fact it’s skid row, has long turned off developers.”
….”Mr. Boffo’s comparatively small, 29-unit residence is next. It’s currently in the development permit approvals stage, and in order to build it, Mr. Boffo has partnered with non-profit housing provider, Community Builders Group, who will purchase and manage the five non-market units. Based on square footage, Mr. Boffo was only required to include three units, but trying to be sensitive to the issue, he increased it to five.“

And further to my notion to preserve large halls (sometimes called Churches) from demolition, especially the many along the Fraser Street spine, here is:
———
Flawed policies doom Vancouver’s old buildings

By Elizabeth Murphy, Vancouver Sun March 11, 2013

In recent years new development has caused the loss of many arts, culture and community assets including local theatres such as the Ridge (and Bowling Alley), Pantages, Hollywood, Varsity, Granville 7 and Playhouse; music and entertainment venues such as the Starfish Room, Richards on Richards and Maxine’s; community space of St. John’s Church, and the list goes on.

Although the public generally supports the arts, culture and related amenities, city policies have not been enacted to ensure their retention. Instead, we have a chronic state of crisis management where last-minute attempts are made under threat of demolition, often after the building has been abandoned and degraded – as it was with the Pantages and York Theatres.

This comes at a high cost of either huge density bonuses or demolition. The solution would be to protect these assets under policy rather than rely on desperate initiatives. While council’s recent approval of mapping existing cultural assets is a step toward addressing the issue, the problem is broader than a few specific sites.

What these assets have in common is that they are old buildings, some heritage-listed. Current city policies do not recognize the role older buildings play in creating a city that is affordable and vibrant.

Cities need a variety of ages of buildings, including a large quantity of older buildings in different levels of condition. The mix should include some depreciated “fixer-uppers” that people starting out in a new business or home can rent or purchase at lower rates and improve through adaptive reuse.

New creative and small-and medium-sized enterprises cannot afford the cost of new construction or extensive renovation. But rigid building codes designed to enable new construction make renovation of older buildings more expensive and often impractical.

Even if a property is not slated for redevelopment, speculative pressure can inflate the land value, property assessments, and then taxes, which are usually paid by the tenant under commercial leases. Therefore, creative and small enterprises need stable neighbourhoods with surrounding development in scale under existing zoning to protect land values from inflation.

Jane Jacobs summarized this wisely in The Death and Life of Great American Cities: “Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.”

Former Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan initially idealized Jane Jacobs until he realized that she didn’t support tower and large-scale developments. Last year, Sullivan was quoted in the Georgia Straight saying he wanted to ” … bury Jane Jacobs under concrete”, an approach dubbed “Sullivanism”.

Vision Vancouver’s Mayor Gregor Robertson has been implementing wholesale “Sullivanism” at record speed, accelerating development pressure at the expense of valuable community assets.

The Waldorf Hotel complex at 1489 East Hastings Street is a case in point. The Waldorf is an old building, constructed in 1947 with the interior converted to the “Tiki-style” in 1955, as was popular at the time. In 2010 Waldorf Productions leased the premises and brought it back to life through revitalization after years of decline.

However, in the last few years the area surrounding the Waldorf has become like a war zone. Large development blocks have been assembled with buildings demolished and vacant lots fenced off.

The Georgia Straight reported that Waldorf Productions had tried to make a deal with Ian Gillespie of Westbank (developer of the Shangri-La, Telus Gardens, Woodward’s, 1401 Comox, etc.) to develop the property with a mixed-residential rezoning including retention of the Waldorf and an option for an operating agreement for Waldorf Productions. This was done without the knowledge of the owner of the property.

Both Westbank and the city apparently indicated support for the idea. However, the owner chose to sell the property to another developer, Sol-terra. Waldorf Productions vacated the premises after failed attempts to make a deal with the owner or the purchaser.

Retired Assistant Director of Planning for the City, Trish French, explained in her letter to Council that the existing zoning on that lot is MC-2, which allows only mixed commercial/ industrial use, not residential condo development. Therefore, the Waldorf would likely be retained if left under current zoning.

But because Mayor Robertson and City Hall did not state clearly that the block would only be considered under current zoning (in fact, the city indicated to developers that residential rezoning would be considered), speculation for rezoning persists, increasing the potential for demolition of the Waldorf.

The city has approved a 120-day protection order until May 15, 2013 to complete a statement of significance for consideration as a heritage listed property. But even if the building is listed as heritage, it still could potentially be demolished.

Lacking are city policies that inherently protect older buildings, especially heritage assets, without resorting to reactionary emergency responses.

Some new options are:

. Require development/building permits be approved before demolition of any building without exception.

. Stop giving tax reductions to owners for development sites after buildings are demolished for temporary green space. This practice is an incentive for demolition and off-loads the tax subsidy received by development sites onto other small businesses to be paid in their property taxes. Other arrangements for permanent community gardens should be made.

. Introduce a rate-of-change policy for arts, cultural, heritage and community amenities (as suggested by Brent Toderian, former Director of Planning), similar to what is in place for rental housing.

. Change land use policies to support retention of a large stock of old buildings and heritage, while integrating new development incrementally at the scale of the neighbourhood to reduce speculation and to keep land values stable. Identifying special sites is important, but policies need to be broad enough to ensure a large stock of older buildings for current and future creative enterprises.

. Reinstating third-party appeals to the Board of Variance to help provide checks and balances.

We need to change current city policy directions and protect older buildings in neighbourhoods to retain their character and encourage affordable, vibrant spaces for creative enterprises, arts, culture, heritage and amenities.

Elizabeth Murphy is a former property development officer for the City of Vancouver’s Housing & Properties Department, a former senior development officer for BC Housing, and has worked as a project manger in the private sector.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Flawed+policies+doom+Vancouver+buildings/8078095/story.html#ixzz2NMJNVsKj