The neighbourhood plan for Mount Pleasant is finally out. It’s something that every neighbourhood struggling with development and calling for a neighbourhood vision should look at, as it shows what a three-year planning exercise with a community looks like.
You’ll notice that it doesn’t get down to zoning in actual blocks and there are still thorny issues to be resolved. The plan notes that residents are the most divided on the issue of height (though not density) in the neighbourhood. As a result, the actual height of any building that might form the core of one of the area’s four planned shopping areas is still up for discussion.
That would mean developments like the Broadway/Kingsway project by Rize. In a process I still don’t understand, the project went through urban design panel and was approved recently at 26 stories, but it is now going to be opened up to the public for comments (which it couldn’t be while the public was still working on a community plan, apparently??). The Rize’s CEO, Will Lin, says there will be a storefront open house set up soon where everyone will get to register their thoughts on what he’s proposing and to have people decide whether this fits in with the overall vision for the neighbourhood.
But that’s just one issue in the whole plan and there are lots of other interesting, thoughtful ideas here. I’d love to hear what others think of this as a plan, both from inside and outside the area.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Tiktaalik // Nov 15, 2010 at 12:28 pm
The only real hard number in here is 6 stories for the “uptown” area (around IGA). I didn’t see any direct mentions of what the increased height would be along Kingsway, though the attached drawings have some buildings that look to be about the scale of the King Edward Village building. The Rize site doesn’t have any numbers attached either. During the community consultation I recall the city floated the 130-150m number to some support. With this area where there was obvious disagreement between the community and the city are they really just going to be completely vague? How can anyone take this plan seriously with this giant hole missing?
Well I have to assume from this document that the community has set the blanket max height for Mount Pleasant at 6 floors. That makes the Rize Project a staggering 433% larger than it should be for the neighbourhood and that proposal should be immediately rejected.
Another area of ambiguity is 2nd to 7th. At 2nd the document mentions a desire to have buildings larger (but how much larger is unsaid) than 6 stories, but there was notable community disagreement. With that question in mind and as well questions concerning to what degree building heights on the east side of main could be increased without severely impacting the view corridor it sounds like the planners are going to work on creating another more detailed plan specifically for that area.
2 Christopher Brayshaw // Nov 15, 2010 at 4:02 pm
“Support the arts” is a fair enough goal, but totally out of whack with the reality of what many in the local arts community have recently experienced in their day-to-day encounters with City Hall.
Many artists renting studio space in Mount Pleasant have received letters advising them that they need to get business licenses for their studios, and that, in many cases, the spaces they’re currently renting aren’t zoned as “artist studios,” but as “offices.” Net result: fee to change zoning ($300+), “special inspection” ($150-ish), business license ($100+). Should I mention that most of these folks can scarcely afford their monthly rent in the first place?
I recently ran through an abbreviated version of this process with the self-funded art exhibition venue some friends and I run above my bookstore at 2422 Main. We’ve been presenting shows for 5 years now, and have been written up by Canadian Art, the Vancouver Sun, & etc. We’re not fly-by-nights, or an exactly unknown quantity. But none of this history cut any ice with the Licensing Department, who seemed sure that “art display space” was actually code for “illicit rave party.”
One of the neatest experiences of my 40+ years was showing the Deputy Chief License Inspector our website and print reviews. “What exactly is this stuff?” “Sculpture.” (Indicating a work made from corrugated greenhouse plastic, foamcore, and bubble pack).
I could go on. Ask Catriona Jeffries how easy it was to open a gallery in a block zones “light industrial.”
This is probably another case of right hand/left hand, but it’s sure frustrating to see a civic bureaucracy that, on the one hand, wants to be seen as a fan of contemporary art and culture, and likes the cache that culture brings, but then seems to erect nothing but roadblocks in the way of those who are working hard — often under weird circumstances and nominal financial renumeration — to build that same culture by hand.
3 Tiktaalik // Nov 15, 2010 at 6:28 pm
On a positive note, from my limited experience with the community consultation (went to one workshop/walkabout and read the final posters at the open house) I think that this document does a pretty good job of recording the broad (very broad!) range of what was discussed.
For example the document specifically notes a lot of tiny little ideas and details that I recall from the discussion I attended (eg. Possibly making a square at the base of 2nd and main, longer East/West crossing times from 2nd to 7th).
Aside from the vagueness with regards to height on Kingsway I think it is generally aligned with how the community feels.
Maybe others can point out things that got left out or were neglected.
4 False Creep // Nov 15, 2010 at 10:50 pm
I’m pretty happy with this plan, but it feels a bit precious to me. It sounds like we all want a calmer, leafier place with quaint alleys and lots of “village ambiance.” This was particularly annoying to me at the last open house. I consider Mount P a near-downtown neighbourhood, and i wish it were more energetic.
It seems like we can embrace density, as long as we promise not to create places that are big-city-urban in character. I think that’s too bad, but this plan certainly captures the majority opinion of my neighbours. At least I can post on a blog.
5 Lewis N. Villegas // Nov 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm
I will have to have a look… the key question will be whether this is planning or planning + urban design. Hopefully the vision does not boil down to a dumbed-down discussion of maximum heights that can be overturned one site at a time.
If the vision is “six stories” then we have to ask about: social housing at Bway & Fraser; Main & Kingsway tower; the Historic Area Height Review; Kingsway & Knight; the Gateway at Cambine & Marine; the Safeway site at Granville & 70th; Arbutus Village at King Ed; and whatever else’s in the pipe or coming down the pike.
6 Tiktaalik // Nov 16, 2010 at 8:09 am
@False Creep
I know exactly what you mean. At the open house/workshop I attended I also got that sort of feeling. There were times where I was rolling my eyes a bit at the idealism, but overall I think a lot of folks had their heads in the right place.
For example during the workshop we were wandering around the light industrial, car filled area from 2nd to 7th and it was clear from the tone of the group was that people hated all the cars and hoped for the future of that area to be more akin to the nice, people filled Commercial Drive area. While I did agree, I was also thinking, “well that seems pretty unrealistic doesn’t it?”
While crossing 5th our group barely made it across the street in time, and we had to basically halt traffic so that a woman in a wheelchair with us had time to cross. It was very clear that that area did need to slow down in some way and it very much should be more safe and friendly to pedestrian traffic. So while perhaps people were being pretty unrealistic about the demands to change that neighbourhood, I think at the core they were right about what needed to be done.
I think that event had a big impact on the planners with us!
Concerning quiet vs lively, there are a ton of folks who live in Mount Pleasant that wouldn’t want to go too much in the area of “quaint village” direction. If you go to certain restaurants even on a weekday you’ll often find it packed to the rafters with people simply drinking. I’ll bet folks there would rather have an actual bar or another pub on the street instead. Where’s the “more bars” part of this community plan?
Of course these aren’t the sort of folks that are ever going to attend a community workshop.
7 Neil // Nov 16, 2010 at 11:18 am
“Where’s the “more bars” part of this community plan? Of course these aren’t the sort of folks that are ever going to attend a community workshop.”
Sounds like there’s a job for you there Tiktaalik, consider me your first AGM attendee.
More seriously do we know whether anyone at the Mount Pleasant BIA will be ensuring “vibrancy” is part of the mix?
Thanks as every to Frances for highlighting this stuff.
8 Tessa // Nov 16, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Maybe we could start holding community workshops in bars, preferebly with plenty of beer on tap during the meeting, so as to help people express their feelings.
As for the report, I still need to read through it, but the height question seems to me to be essential to have resolved. It doesn’t sound to me like the community was supporting heights of 26 stories, as has been proposed at kingsway and broadway. This is a community that is happy to accept its share of density, so city planners shouldn’t go ignoring their wishes and souring the mood towards development, especially if they wish to see increased density as a part of the plans in the rest of the city, where it will certainly be much more difficult to achieve.
9 Tessa // Nov 16, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Upon closer inspection: I really like the laneways ideas, especially for small commercial space and studios as well as housing; there were lots of other good little ideas, too, such as a pedestrian connection to Jonathan Rogers Park, and generally I really like the scale they talk about, that is six-story mixed use buildings, with a few areas where it would be somewhat higher, especially along Kingsway. I just don’t see how the 26 stories planned for the Rize site is respectful of that plan.
10 arkwild // Nov 17, 2010 at 11:53 am
The Vision document is ambitious and real – it points out the areas of convergence and divergence within the community. It asks for continued engagement at the community level – this is not simply a ‘storefront’ with the opportunity to’ comment’ but a tangible and meaningful place at the development table – one where the community actually has the power to weigh in on specific development issues at specific sites and informs design from the beginning of a project.
Mount Pleasant understands that we need to take on more density and height [within context] – we want to do that BUT we want to have a say in how that looks and comes to the neighbourhood. This is being done in other cities – it doesn’t kill development it makes developers responsive to communities – it makes for better architecture and better communities.
My hope is that council will endorse and facilitate a Community Design Panel that has clout – a panel that voices the vision of the community and a panel that begins to shape the form of development that needs to solve issues of how density comes to our city – not every problem needs to be solved with a 26 storey tower…
11 Ron // Nov 17, 2010 at 3:41 pm
A lot of the look and feel of the neighbourhood will depend on the massing of the building, not just the height.
Walk on Walter Hardwick Way in the Olympic Village and the 10 storey buildings form streetwall that close in one you (other than at the plaza), whereas walking down Richards Street in Downtown South, among the 20 and 30 storey towers seems airy in comparison.
12 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Nov 18, 2010 at 10:53 am
So, the two posters who have expressed, in a very roundabout way, tepid support for massive developments like Rize, say that it’s OK because one thinks it will seem “airy”, and the other thinks it is “big-city-urban”. You guys are joking, right? Either that, or you sit on the Urban Design Panel and believe that Brent Toderian actually cares what the citizens of the neighbourhoods he is mangling think.
It’s OK to demolish a heritage building to make way for this tower, when the community has explicitly stated on virtually every page of the Plan that one of their most important values is preserving and enhancing the heritage of the “hilltop community”?
It’s OK to build at a scale that is over 400% greater than the preferred height, which the community has explicitly stated on virtually every page of the Plan is 6 storeys?
It’s OK to ignore the “Community Concerns”, which mostly relate to heights that are grossly out of scale and character with the rest of the area?
Next thing you’re going to me is that it’s also OK for the Planning Department to spend $350,000 and three years of labour and resources to write a report that, in the very first development that is proposed, ignores most of the fundamental values they spent all this time and resources building a consensus on. Has anyone on the Urban Design Panel even bothered to read this Plan?
Tessa is right, the Rize shows zero respect for the neighbourhood’s vision.
And Tik is right, the Rize should have been rejected right away. Period.
Neighbourhood after neighbourhood, Planning has trampled on the fundamental values of local heritage, scale, character, and urban design. They have paid lip service to residents’ concerns, then dismissed them out of hand, turning the public consultation process into a complete sham that no-one in their right mind has any trust in.
The real reason this tower development – like Maxine’s, Marine Gateway, the tower next to the Sun Yat-Sen Gardens, Shannon Estates, etc. etc. – has been rushed through the approval process is simple: big towers = easy money for the Planning Department.
There’s a proverbial bull in the China shop right now, and this toothless little document ain’t going to do nothing to prevent that bull from wreaking its havoc.
What a waste.
13 Bill McCreery // Nov 18, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Well said Gassy. Amen.
14 mountpleasantneighbour // Nov 18, 2010 at 9:09 pm
The Community Plan passed today.
The discussion involved some interesting tap-dancing (in particular from the Community Liaison Group) about how supporting “density” actually meant supporting high-rises, notwithstanding that the comments during the consultations were overwhelmingly against highrises.
When the video’s available, it’s worth watching just for Councillor Anton’s comments about how she wished the rize proposal was taller (more monumental? something like that)… and her subsequent attempts to “clarify” her comments.
15 voony // Nov 19, 2010 at 12:31 am
it could look off topic,
…but you could be interested to know that Paris council just approved to increase the hard height limit from 37m (not changed since 1977) to up to 180m in some neighborhood, which could have lot in common with Mount Pleasant (or marine gateway).
Oh, and also that Parisian architects seems to prefer aerial subway to underground one…
I have found thoss information bits funny enough in the context of Vancouver urban discussion, that I couldn’t resist to share it with you.
I have put more detail in a post at
http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/chronicle-of-paris/
16 JustTheFacts // Nov 19, 2010 at 9:15 am
One doesn’t have to look further than the minutes of a recent Urban Design Panel meeting on Oct 20, 2010 to get an idea of what little clout the Community Plan has when it comes to discussions around the proposed Rize development.
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/udp/2010/Minutes/Oct20.html
“The (Rize) site has been identified by the community and staff as one where additional height and density can be accommodated.”
This is an ingenious summary of the community feedback which expressed interest in more density and height but specifically called out high-rises as a no-no for the neighbourhood. This interpretation conveniently leaves out the “no high-rise” part and is now one of the underlying themes of the revised Community Plan that was unanimously approved by City Council on Nov 18.
From this clever summary, we now make the logical leap that as long as the community supports more height, then any height is OK. Don’t take my word for it though. Read the minutes. The discussion now is to make the building even taller. Under Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement the first recommendation reads, “Consider reducing the streetwall height by one floor and increasing the tower by two storeys to compensate.”
17 MB // Nov 19, 2010 at 11:04 am
There seems to be a schism between the long range planning and current / development planning functions. Apply development and economic pressures, and up pop the towers like so many jack-in-the-boxes even before the slower community workshop processes are completed.
This issue seems to have mushroomed under the current council, but I think it was germinated after City Plan hit the kitchen tables of the neighbourhoods and residents saw their participation increase and actually get counted.
The pendulum has been swinging back ever since.
18 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Nov 19, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Interesting thoughts, MB.
I think the pendulum really swung back during the EcoDensity consultation. Neighbourhoods all over the City were pretty wary and vocal about what was being proposed – it looked an awful lot like a greenwashed carte blanche to build big was being handed to developers. Sam Sullivan quickly realized the public threat to his grand copyright scheme, and shut down the neighbourhood groups. The credibility of the City’s development consultation process has been deteriorating ever since.
And lo and behold, as the next wave of developments gets approved, everything the neighbourhoods feared and were speaking out against is coming true.
It first hit home for me with the Historic Area Height Review, which used the vague justifications of EcoDensity to change by-laws that had been in place since Project 200 in the 1970s. The resulting tower that was approved next to the Sun Yat-Sen Gardens is a total disgrace to Vancouver’s historic heritage district.
Now, the justification is not just the vague (and unproven) theory that height=most sustainable development, but also STIR. The outcome, sadly, is exactly the same.
STIR or the EcoDensity Charter, if we take them (somewhat naively) at face value, could be interpreted as positive policy directions. But the politicians don’t spend 2 years behind closed doors with a developer planning a site like the Rize, all the while making sure that it remains hidden from the community visioning that is going on at the same time, do they?
How those development policies, on one side, and Community Visions, on the other, are implemented on the ground is the responsibility of planning and related departments. Since 2006, and from my own experience with the HAHR, that is where the disconnect is occurring.
Leave a Comment