Frances Bula header image 2

Neighbourhood group moves from protesting one project or one area plan to entire vision for Port Moody

November 26th, 2013 · 70 Comments

Interesting to see what’s happening out in Port Moody, where a newly constituted neighbourhood group is now raising questions about the city’s entire Official Community Plan.

I was wondering if there might be some of this starting when I went out to Metro Vancouver a few weeks ago and listened to presentations about “regional context statements” (similar to official community plans) for cities where planners were looking at, in some cases, the doubling of current population in 30 years. (Like in Township of Langley.) At the very least, significant increases.

When the region is simply growing like topsy, with no numbers attached, residents know there’s a lot of development going on but aren’t sure how much. But when the future growth is laid out in black and white, you can see how some people get alarmed at the thought of the change that’s going to come. And then they go into “put on the brakes” mode.

As appears to be happening in Port Moody. Their news release attached here.

PORT MOODY COALITION OF CITIZENS TO FIGHT PROPOSED MASSIVE CHANGE TO CITY

Groups Banding Together To Counter Port Moody’s Draft OCP

 

 The City of Port Moody’s Draft Official Community Plan will face stiff opposition Wednesday evening from a city wide group of citizens who are afraid of losing the small town feel, neighbourly ambience and charm that makes Port Moody a community like no other.  Since April 2012, the City of Port Moody has been developing a new OCP that looks to nearly double the population by adding new areas for high rise residential development without having a plan for additional traffic, parks, schools or other municipal infrastructure.  Major changes from industrial to high rise residential zoning are proposed, sparking fears of traffic gridlock, environmental concerns, loss of heritage buildings, and above all, massive oceanfront development.

 

The City has provided some public input opportunities through open houses  and town hall meetings, but has not addressed concerns raised.  Despite the last Town Hall meeting demonstrating a six to one unfavourable comment ratio on that version, the latest revision has only added further high rise development in the Westport end of the St. Johns corridor in response to a few comments from a well-organized group from that area, without making any significant changes to the most contentious issue, the massive development in the Moody Centre region. 

 

City wide residents have partnered up with the Moody Centre Community Association, Tri-City Green Council and others to voice their dissent with the current draft OCP.  Mayor Mike Clay states that “This draft OCP is the vision of the people.”  We challenge this statement, as opposition continues to grow.  We plan to hold the Mayor and Council to their statement that “We want to listen and hear from you.  We will continue with public consultation until we get it right and until it is supported by the vast majority of the residents for however long it takes…”  Unfortunately, it seems that the Mayor and Council have not yet heard us.

 

Elaine Golds, Vice President of the Burke Mountain Naturalists, wrote recently in the Tri City News about the game of “Whack-A-Mole” being played by the City with some building heights being dropped while other high rises pop up elsewhere.  We couldn’t agree more.  The Official Community Plan must reflect the wishes of the people of Port Moody, and not cater to the desires of developers.

 

Who we are:  We are a group of concerned citizens of Port Moody who are opposed to the revised OCP Draft as presented by the City of Port Moody.  We feel that it does not reflect the vision of the community.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • jenables

    Yes apparently jolson and apparently if you don’t like it you are a NIMBY, making the cost of housing higher and preventing progress and giving a hard time to these politicians and developers who gosh darn it, are trying their best to improve our lives!

    Enjoy your shitty air quality, lack of gardens, (the two go hand in hand) and fighting tooth and nail for your own 500sq feet, overlooking a bunch of towers… What a great view! I won’t be joining you.

    Gman, your comments made my day. It’s almost beer time again, I think. Bula Xmas party? Perhaps Frances can pick a date this time, if she doesn’t want to throttle us all by now.

  • jenables

    Jolson I read your comment as start smashing up old towns, sorry. My sarcasm was irrelevant to urban sprawl, which I really don’t think is as bad as what is proposed here.

  • Kenji

    @9

    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Campaign of eradicating words, huh?

    I guess changing minds by making an argument is logical, plausible, and reasonably supported by facts is too much work?

    Ha ha ha ha ha ! Thanks for that, man (wipes eyes)

  • jenables

    Hey Kenji, careful now. Randy works tirelessly (and I mean that) and I believe he asks very fair and poignant questions which are rarely answered adequately. Thank you for doing all you do, Randy.

  • Silly Season

    Chianello: City planners would do well to heed advice of renowned architect

    By Joanne Chianello, OTTAWA CITIZEN November 25, 2013

    Award-winning architect Jack Diamond was in Ottawa last week, offering his views on city intensification.

    When Jack Diamond — officer of the Order of Canada, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Gold Medal winner, all-around Canadian design icon — comes to town to discuss how we should build cities, the cognoscenti take note.

    So it was no surprise to discover National Capital Commission executives, senior city planners, Mayor Jim Watson and a couple of councillors, developers, architecture professors and a smattering of media types piled into a Rideau Club dining room late last week to listen to the renowned architect.

    The luncheon guests were hardly shocked by the Toronto-based Diamond’s main message that continuing to build low-density communities is simply not sustainable. Even in Ottawa, where we have more open space than almost any other large Canadian municipality, we’ve been embracing the concept of intensification as we come to grips with the fiscal and environmental costs of ever-expanding sprawl.

    But Diamond did raise a few eyebrows when he suggested cities are going about intensification all wrong.

    High-rises? “All too often a knee-jerk reaction.”

    And he had few good things to say about a current plan to build 80-storey towers in downtown Toronto, arguing that there isn’t the infrastructure to support such a huge development, at least not right now.

    To the hundreds of Ottawa residents who’ve come to this city’s planning committee to complain of out-of-scale rezonings, Diamond is surely a hero. While he’s not against tall buildings per se, Diamond posits that too often, condo towers are approved and built smack in the middle of low-rise neighbourhoods all in the name of intensification.

    “You’ve got to calibrate it,” Diamond said in an interview after his speech. “You can’t confront 20 storeys with two.” He doesn’t offer a strict formula for how the building heights should be graded in a community, because “the important part is that the contrasts are not great.”

    The award-winning architect of the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts is also a big believer that most cities can reach their intensification goals with a combination of residential infill — that’s duplexes, triplexes and even quarterplexes (no NIMBYism allowed!) — low-rise apartment buildings and, on main intersections, mid-rise buildings in the nine- or 10-storey range. And he’s including the suburbs in this vision.

    “If you were to measure the under-utilized land within the city boundary, you’d be shocked by how much there is,” said Diamond.

    But of all his bold ideas — from revamping the municipal tax system to protecting man-made space like sidewalks over green space (although he admitted later he was exaggerating slightly to be provocative) — Diamond’s most intriguing concept was that of shopping centre as town centre.

    It makes perfect sense: zone malls as mixed-use centres, to include housing and offices. After all, retail centres are usually surrounded by acres of parking, which could go underground or in a parkade, turning over all that under-utilized space to building street-front shops — “The surest way to kill a street is to build blank walls along them,” said Diamond — and housing. Key to this plan is to locate shopping malls on major transit hubs.

    It was a fascinating discussion, in large part because we don’t often talk out how to make the suburbs denser. The intensification conversation usually pits the rapidly changing urban core against the expanding outer communities. That’s got to stop if we have any chance of growing this city in a sustainable way.

    In Ottawa, we’re only just getting around to that discussion. Indeed, some of these intensification concepts will be discussed this week as council votes on the official plan, the city’s blueprint for building in years to come.

    Perhaps we can learn from our planning mistakes of the past — such as approving a 48-storey building in a neighbourhood of largely two-level homes, for example — and put in place rules “to increase the density of the suburbs without upsetting the scale,” as Diamond put it.

    And that’s an outcome any neighbourhood in the city would welcome.

  • Bill Lee

    Wow! The suburbs invade the blog.

    So is everyone finding links (relatives, condo investments, interesting shops, peace and quiet) east of Boundary Road, and south of the Fraser?

    And this despite the hundreds of civic reporters that Doyenne Bula is sending out into the world every year.

  • Bill Lee

    Trouble with new development, retail under towers, in that rents soar, so only a succession of Subways, or small chain stores fill the streets.
    Go along Main Street from 7th south to 33rd. On your bus, bike or bing.com/maps view.
    Every new building gets chains, or banks/liquor stores and the like

    Soaring rents lead to a retail monoculture.
    Austere ГУМ stores anyone ( «Государственный универсальный магазин», до 1921 года) anyone?

  • Frances Bula

    @concerned citizen. One of the things that truly flummoxes me is how people quickly jump to the conclusion that they are being represented negatively. What is so awful about the phrase “put on the brakes”? Isn’t that what you’re doing, is trying to make council slow down and think twice before doing passing this community plan?

    And I don’t believe I said you represented the whole community. I put up your news release, verbatim, so people could read your words without a lot of interpretation from me. I noted that I thought this was going to be happening more, as communities started to look at the population targets being planned for.

    ?????

  • Jay

    Even if the rents for these new retail spaces were lower, I don’t think independents would want to occupy them anyways. The facades are so generic and bland, they are really only suitable for dental and doctors offices, and maybe a massage parlour. The stretch of Main St. between 16th and 18th is terrible.

    When the city talks about “visual separation” between retail units in new developments along Kingsway/Norquay, I hope they mean it otherwise Norquay will not be much of a vibrant, walkable neighborhood.

    I look to Garrison Woods in Calgary as a decent example of a newer development incorporating a more inviting retail section.

  • Chris Keam

    @Jay

    I assume you are referring to the west side of 17th to 18th? The same side of the street from 16-17 is all independent businesses IIRC and the east side home to a secondhand furniture store, plumbing, a local toy store among others. I feel you’re painting with a pretty broad brush calling the all four blocks of street front uniformly terrible, when as near as I can tell the only real candidate for the ‘bland’ label comprises a quarter of the streetscape.

  • Guest

    One of the problems with monotonous retail space is the ceiling heights.
    Retail needs high ceilings, and often, overall building height restrictions limit the condo blocks to 4 storeys – meaning short ceilings on the retail – plus the generic mandatory weather protection doesn’t help either.

  • Roger Kemble

    I must say in all this bickering and minutia concerning the pros and cons of these various community plans one thing stands out: growth, or the lack there of.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vancouver#Population_growth

    . . . and if the past is anything to go by the numbers do not justify all these towers, congested lanes, looking into the neighbours’ bathrooms or otherwise.

    With growth over the last five years at regional 9.3% and city at 4.4%, that is, please pay attention, 9.3% and 4.4% in the five years 2006-11, not annually, and more or less the same over previous decades, with Vancouver real estate, supposedly the most expensive on the continent, and real jobs as scares as hens teeth who will be paying for, who will be occupying all these fancy developments.

    Who will be paying for all the shiny trinkets to get us hordes to work and back?

    The Federal government is busy promising shipyard jobs that haven’t so far materialized. The Provincial government is putting all its eggs in one basket: LNG jobs that may materialize in the Kitimat region and Peace River Country: fat lot of good that is for Vancouver’s fancy plans!

    (Wow I never thought, over sixty year ago when I landed here at the Douglas crossing, I would end up living in a petro-state nor did I, when I was a sailor watching the big British Tankers hauling in loaded from the Persian Gulf, that I’d see them again in my dotage!)

    How come the empty condo crisis has slipped under the radar? Surely that fits somewhere in development and real estate profitability?

    There are still hundreds of condos, town houses and SFD’s sitting empty all over the city and region that in the hubbub of us insulting each other seems to have faded into the back ground.

    In the mean time the best the region has to offer is slinging coffee at Tim Horton’s, fracking, or EI which is not exactly big money job intensive: “go to work/go to the pub/go to bed/go to work” not a particularly stimulating life cycle.

    ¡Asi es la vida señors y señoras en Columbia Británica!

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    @Spartikus 35

    The piece you are missing is this…

    Where are the places in Port Moody (or anywhere else) that need change? If we begin with the blighted areas in our urban places, then—the question not the statement—about how to achieve this intensification becomes clear. We would NOT be “bulldozing” whole neighbourhoods. Rather we would be correcting the excesses of the Modernism of the last 50 years, and building new walkable places we can call home with livable streets and affordable housing.

    Not rocket-science, but good governance—a missing commodity?

    Stats Canada relies on models or paradigms for their analysis. The point that I raise is that the models are old and in need of revision. I do not see the basis for the doubling of our population in current terms (obviously, we can always imagine other scenarios).

    Furthermore, the urban paradigm is changing. We have shown that we don’t need tower zones to achieve high-density neighbourhoods. Towers put money in the hands of a few—and powerful—developers who the put money into a few political campaigns.

    This is dangerous for our democracy. Local government is where the system meets the user. The local government interface is the “canary in the coal mine” telling us how things should be run provincially and federally.

    As Frances points out, there is “another option”. The problem is that “the other option” is not being tested at planning departments in Vancouver, Port Moody, and everywhere else in our region. That should be a great cause for concern. Government should be testing ALL options, not leaning into the wind of a few, powerful, developers.

    If we ask, these corporations will build human-scale communities. They are not dumb. Just look at their profit margins to realize they are in it for the long haul.

    I’ll look at the stats later and comment.

  • brilliant

    @boohoo1 ” I’m very wary of any group.claiming to.represent the community”. Yeah, sure, unless they happen to represent your view and the so-called “silent Majority”.

    Its funny how the usual.suspects like to praise the sainted Jane Jacobeans who fought development near theBayshore and Project 200 yet those who try to.stop the same neighbourhood destruction today are NIMBYs.

    Judging by some comments its just bitter Gen Yrs and Millennia who realize they’ve been priced out of ever owning a home while politics kowtowed to foreign investors.

  • Bill Lee

    @Jay // Nov 27, 2013 at 8:57 pm #59

    I know that you are talking about the 3131 complex on top of the old Palm Dairy, now with a overwide (>4 metres) TD Bank frontage and a Shoppers (owned by Loblaws now) Drug Mart.

    It is all the fault of the poodle shit 😉 of the art piece that they installed there. And the bent “straws” that attract no on to the garden set they sealed in concrete.

    I was thinking of that, and 4423 Main St.

    Unless there is a client retail already signed, they hang fire for months, years.

    See new high-ceilinged place on the east side at 22nd and Main with large FOR LEASE signs in its high glass windows.

  • Kenji

    @62

    In the new budget paper, the City allows that population growth is occuring at a slower pace than in previous years.

    Yet the condos continue to be built, I presume not frivolously by developers.

    So, the issue of whether there is a market for the condo is somewhat distinct from the issue of whether more people are actually living here full time.

    As for the income-mix issue, it really does not make sense that people who do lower/middle income work here cannot afford to live here and must bus in from the boonies. That’s not very green, is it.

    Maybe the City should be building or at least jointly building some non-profit quasi-market housing. It owns properties here and there, so there is a precedent.

    Affordable housing, IMO, is not a ‘nice to have’ , it is a ‘need to have’ and therefore a justifiable area of govt intervention.

  • Bill Lee

    And last night in PoMo,

    “Hundreds pack town hall meeting about Port Moody high-rises 07:21 CKNW.com News
    Author: virginia.mcconchie

    Disappearing green space and the loss of small town charm

    Both topped the list of complaints from speakers at a town hall meeting in Port Moody last night to debate the city’s draft Official Community Plan.

    It includes plans for high-rise developments and higher population density surrounding the anticipated Evergreen Line, set to be completed in 2016.

    “This was a growth sprint, but you are trying to turn it into a marathon with no end, and that’s not acceptable,” said one woman.

    Opponents of the OPC decried the plans for high-rise developments that could hamper access to the shoreline.

    But some said they would welcome the change:”I think it’s important that we have density to help support businesses.”

    About 300 packed the meeting.

  • Threadkiller

    @Rico #36:
    There you go again. I can’t decide if you’re a master satirist or a total loony. Number 3 Road is “a 1000 times better than pre Canada Line”, you say. Older strip malls disappearing, yup. Being replaced by new, bigger ones. Hodgepodge of smaller stores disappearing, check. Being replaced by hodgepodge of bigger stores (and malls). Despite the cosmetic changes, Number 3’s still as ugly as the Devil’s ass, just as it was when I worked (in a store) near Richmond Centre way back in the late 70s. In what way does all this constitute overwhelmingly positive change? Of course, if you really, really *like* bigger strip malls and bigger stores.., which you seem to– oh, of course not. Can’t be true. Keep it up, son. You’ll be the 21st century’s Leacock yet.

  • rph

    Threadkiller – you are right. The “strip mall” format is still alive and well, but as you said, just bigger. Richmond just approved a massive`160,000 sq ft Walmart, with an outdoor mall of 50 assorted stores, at the corner of Alderbridge and Garden City. As a council swaying bonus Walmart promised green space. On their roof.

    The Jingon development company also plans a huge shopping/hotel/whatever complex for the foot of Three Road near the Casino.

    The corner of Three Road and Sea Island Way is also up for a huge retail component to go along with the towers planned there.

    None of this will make that corridor any prettier. It will just provide parking opportunities for offshore investment money, and more shopping and dining selections for Richmond’s nouveau riche.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    @Spartikus 35

    OK I looked at the Stats Canada link…

    2009 – 2036 (27 year growth in BC)

    42% growth High
    30% growth Low

    This is BC wide, including calculations that suburban-style growth will continue apace in the GVRD and Fraser Valley communities at a larger rate than in the urban core; but that the urban core will sustain its growth with Hong Kong-style urbanism, or “Vancouverism”.

    At RAMP/MPIC we have been using the GVRD number for growth. The way that the local style of urbanism builds out—as opposed to Hong Kong, say—is on the commuter lines. From Vancouver to Chilliwack; from Chilliwack to Hope; and this time… on both sides of the river. We build neighbourhoods as self-supporting townsites of up to 10,000 people. We do this even on the ALR and this is why…

    One townsite = 120 acres
    (walking distance edge to core = 5 minutes)

    On ALR, the footprint is strictly delimited—i.e. no sprawl. 120 acres & full stop. We house people next to some of the most fertile land on the globe, next to the largest salmon producing river anywhere.

    3.5 storey urbanism delivers apartments and fee-simple row houses. There may still be cottage lots in these townsites along with a transit stop adjacent to a commercial core.

    1. Density (high) 80 units per acre (towns & apartments including retail)

    2. Density (low) 12-18 units per acre cottage lots.

    3. Population: 2.2 persons per unit.

    4. Townsite population (high): 21,120

    5. Townsite population (low): 3,168

    6. Average pop.: 10,000

    7. Spacing: 1.5 – 5 minutes along commuter rail corridor

    This model is also applicable to urban areas like Vancouver where the 20th century CBD (central business district) is towers; but the peripheral areas would like to retain their cottage character.

    Here, the peripheral neighbourhoods have built out in the “5. (low) 3,168+ residents” range. Neighbourhoods have added density with 3 storey walk-up zones in the 1960s and 1970s.

    Yet, the “neighbourhood edges” remain a mess, polluted by too-high levels of traffic.

    The “alternative” approach is pretty simple:

    (a) Revitalize (make livable) the arterials by re-introducing transit as either BRT-Trolley or Tram; and

    (b) Incrementally redevelop cottage lots as fee-simple row houses and walk-up apartments.

    On a lot-by-lot basis this “incremental intensification” is VERY significant, growing from 12 to 80 units per acre (26.4 to 176 persons) or 700%. However, not sprawling, but rather locating in those places we talked about already where “growth is the engine of change”. And, local communities have identified local areas where “change” is critically needed!

    The plan introduces a missing product into our urbanism—missing here, but built just about anywhere else you care to look, including: the Paris of Napoleon III and his infamous Prefect du Seine; Georgian London; Montreal; Cabbage Town; Greenwich Village; Beacon Hill and Back Bay Boston; but NOT HERE. (Emphasis given to suggest we have ’the smoking gun’). These are among the best residential neighbourhoods built in our cultural and historic traditionbut NOT HERE.
    .
    Get it??

    However, the plan also pinches traffic off our streets—returning livability to our arterials—by providing space for fast & efficient & non-polluting transit. The commuter trip, in this plan, is a transit trip rather than an automobile trip. Daily traffic volume on the arterials returns to normalcy… something like 12,000 ADT (average daily trips).

    Think “Olympic Spring” 2012. We know how this looks and how it works, ‘cause we did it for 3 weeks, right here at home, in a full-live experiment, while the city was flooded by the international (winter) community.

    Finally, there is the economic question. Or as I would like to pose it, our problem with not being able to deliver “Affordable Housing” in the current market conditions.

    The ability to redevelop one cottage lot as two fee-simple houses (4,000 s.f. per house or 8,000 per lot) tips the scale in favour of the small builder once again. With land values back to normalcy, it will be possible to sell this product at $250,000 per house (or a combined total of $500,000 per cottage lot) and still achieve a profit of 5 to 7%. These will be bare-bones units, where the DIY economy will keep owners busy during their down-time adding value to their property.

    The mantra—once the financiers find their way back onto their chaisse lounges—is that we get affordable housing, walkable neighbourhoods, and livable streets. The reason it works is that we are thinking at the regional scale, not on a localized, lot-assembly basis. And we are counting on the senior levels of government to come back into the mix with a strong CMHC, and as key players in building the transit infrastructure required to support walkable, human-scale urbanism.

    Housing the homeless with supports (resident care)—is done within the margins of the current budgets, on small-scale housing sites that look exactly like everything else in the neighbourhood. However, we shift the costs of treating mental illness in jails and emergency wards to providing mental health services as part of housing a small fragment of our population.

    Schools thrive. The primary school catchment—already back in the 1920s—was identified as the cellular unit of our modern urbanism (as distinct from “modernism”; “Vancouverism”; etc).

    The job market relies heavily on a digital economy where we no longer need to build and service a “parallel city” in order to be competitive in the global economy. Keep in mind that the CBD or “downtown” of the 1950s to 1970s was full during the day; and feral on evenings and weekends. In part, that is what made it so interesting for me to go clubbing in the early 1980s was that the place was virtually empty: “Everybody was Out of Town” by 6 p.m. Friday! (In entire districts of NYC too; not just here).

    The new economy has done away with that. The condo craze capitalized that infrastructure already in place and feral on off-work hours. Even Wall Street added on residential neighbourhoods within easy walking distance by building them out into the East River.

    However, in the ’new’ economy, we can work either in giant centres or in small, independent shops. The schools are becoming social hubs as we move to year-round curriculum and 0-5 strong-start programs. The children are in the school environment for the full working day, not just 9 to 3; but the parents are volunteering and participating in supporting roles. We don’t have to miss our children’s sports teams and performance art events because many of us are helping the teachers coach and train them.

    The same effect spills over into the block and the rear lane. When schools are made up of families that live walking distance from the gym and the auditorium, school mates live around the corner from each other. They play together after dinner in the local park while the parents stand around and wonder who the heck planned their community without a single coffee joint next to the park (save in Strathcona, of course!). The school Gala becomes the the community Winter social and the
    community fundraiser where school families and local businesses celebrate their common purpose. The Spring Fair is a show case of sporting activity; local foods and crafts; and a safe-day for school age children to run loose with their cohort within a well defined perimeter. In an inadvertent moment I drop my wallet, yet it is returned to me within the hour, before I even realize it is missing.

    In Mount Pleasant we are not just “Up In Arms Over the Rize” but were are living the dream everyday, Spartikus-Dude.