Community plans will be all the more tortuous now that infill is going to be more front and centre. A few offhand comments by some local politicians has indicated to me that, while community plans will carry weight, the sum needs to equal the whole.

The strange vagueness of Vancouver plans are doomed from the start because they are so vague. Many other cities have specific densities prescribed for specific locations and that allows specific fees to be calculated. No guessing, no he said she said, handshakes and other bs.

Vancouver should have a look over Boundary and across the river for some ideas…

@boohoo #4

It’s funny that San Francisco had the same problem with vague plans that are being addressed via more prescriptive zoning.

Here’s the latest for the DTES moving swiftly past any community plan that’s in the works, in Chinatown – 611 Main Street (at Keefer), 17 stories, 7.88 FSR (floor space ratio); and 633 Main (at Georgia), 16 stories, 9.29 FSR!!! Is there any other community where a FSR of 9.29 is acceptable?

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/601-627main/index.htm
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/633main/index.htm

I was a co-leader for the Jane’s Walk in Marpole a couple of weeks ago. I didn’t agree to help lead the walk because of dreamlike ideas of what community planning will do for our community. My desire was to show people the uniquness of my neighbourhood, share some history and interesting tid bits about it.

I think it’s safe to say that many folks who have been involved in planning meetings for Marpole and involved in the planning process for various developments over the past years have a good sense of what planning will and won’t do for us. I think those folks are going to enter into the Marpole Plan process with a sense of reality – and a stronger sense of hope.

With Vision Vancouver, community input to the planning process has been reduced to a complete embarrassment. Really why does anyone bother? Does anyone really think that the viaducts aren’t coming down? That 1401 Comox won’t be approved? Did anyone actually think Rize wouldn’t be approved? At this point, engaged citizens have a single meaningful option: organize, raise money and throw these pseudo green egocentric Vision incompetents out and replace them with someone who has a vague understanding of how democracy is meant to work. (Let’s toss the NPA on the rubbish heap while we’re at it). Really, anything less is a waste of time.

There was a workshop in spring 2011 hosted by the Planning Dept. with about 60 community stakeholders and 11 City planners. The day-long workshop was in anticipation of these 3 plans, and was ostensibly to ensure that the significant time and expense of creating a Community Plan wasn’t wasted.

At the time, the Rize furor was raging, and it appeared that the planners, some of whom seemed rather stung by the criticism they were getting, sincerely didn’t want a repeat of the debacle that was unfolding in Mt. Pleasant.

The report went to Council in July 2011, I believe. Unfortunately, it was pretty non-committal as to any specifics, despite the fact that there were some very specific recommendations put forward during the workshops with a consensus of participants (Neil, Boohoo and Lewis have encapsulated some of the key ones above).

What I’m wondering now is whether any of these recommendations have been incorporated into the process or the terms of reference for the 3 plans now underway? Does anyone know? Frances seems to suggest that they are proceeding more or less according to the same old vague terms used in Mt. Pleasant.

I also recall Adrianne Carr’s motion that stipulated a zoning capacity scan was to be done at the outset for each community. Has this happened? It’s a good first step, although without corresponding mid-long term targets for unit/population density being set in each neighbourhood, it would seem to be a rather toothless exercise.

My feeling is, most people recognize the need that change is coming, and if given some clearly defined targets, will find creative solutions to meet those targets while preserving and enhancing the neighbourhood’s core values and character.

Despite what some people would have us believe, most residents are not anti-development, anti-density or, heaven forbid, anti-condo. But when you trample on the values, scale and character of their neighbourhood, and insert “special sites”, “opportunities for added density” and other such open-ended double-speak into the final draft, you can expect more of the same polarization and claims of betrayal when the next Rize gets proposed.

Sometimes you make good sense A Dave @ #14 but when it comes to your perception of the urban conversation you loose me. Towers only downtown: none in the neighbourhoods: diktats, to say the least, are off-putting! Whoever coined that is going to lose that one. Towers already proliferate throughout the city’s many communities.

A colleague remarked when I pointed out that RIZE was reduced from twenty-five floors to nineteen her response was, nineteen? Twenty-five? What’s the difference? Or even thirty, what’s the difference?

Good city building, A Dave, requires, above all, an intelligent response . . . appropriate height in a changing urban environment and, most of all, artistic/creative treatment of the figure at ground level!

“. . . although without corresponding mid-long term targets for unit/population density being set in each neighbourhood . . .” Dream on A Dave “ . . . mid-long term targets . . . ” crumble at the first touch of human hands.

“.. . most residents are not anti-development, anti-density or, heaven forbid, anti-condo.” Oh yes they are!

There are a few fine building in Mount Pleasant: for the most part, though, it is threadbare and tacky. I am horrified that so many, especially young people, cling onto that tacky past.

IMO RIZE is not a building I would be proud to call my design, but for sure the public input did not help!

“ . . . and other such open-ended double-speak . . . is absolutely out of line. With intelligent interpretation Mount Pleasant Community Plan is fine. The public caterwauling is not!

I really appreciate your insights on this, Frank and Roger. To clarify, the Metro projections for Vancouver are 140,000 new residents and 70,000 new dwellings by 2040.

If we break this down to the neighbourhood level we can at least get a ballpark target:

23 neighbourhood centres = ave. +6100 people and +3040 units per neighbourhood

One approach could be to identify a quarter section (160 acres) as a walkable, compact neighbourhood centre to land the bulk of the density:

23 neighbourhoods x 160 acres = 3680 acres (out of 28,000 acres city-wide, or about 13% of the total land area)

The population density in these 3860 acres would have to increase by about 38 people/acre or about 20 units/acre to meet the projection of 140,000 new residents and 70,000 new units by 2040.

I know this is overly simplistic. But still, it does seem to demonstrate that, to accomplish the projected level of intensification needed over the next 27 years, there is no need to rush through ultra-high density and way out of scale spot rezonings (at the expense of community’s stated values) in order to build a “sustainable” city. And, of course, it doesn’t preclude that some areas like Oakridge or Marpole will accept towers.

*

“There are a few fine buildings in Mount Pleasant: for the most part, though, it is threadbare and tacky.”

Roger, next time you’re in town, go into the Rize office at 10th/Kingsway and check out the old building (the old Jentzen’s showroom) that will be demolished to make way for the Rize. Once you are inside, under the skylights, my guess is the last thing you’ll be thinking is that it’s “tacky”. You’re right, there are not many good old buildings left, but this is one of them. Demolishing it for a tower clearly goes against the MPCP’s core values.

“… most residents are not anti-development, anti-density or, heaven forbid, anti-condo.” Oh yes they are!”

Sorry, I disagree (the exception being the DTES, for obvious reasons). If you don’t believe me, after visiting the Jentzen building, take a look at the dozen or so new or under construction condo buildings within 3 blocks of this corner. These developments are all 6-10 storey high-density developments that are generally in the scale of the surrounding area. The developers profited. The City got its permit fees and will realize future revenue gains with the increased tax base. And the neighbours didn’t protest. There was no caterwauling. The “diktats” that are causing polarization and protest are the spot-rezonings that are way out of scale with the neighbourhood.

Marpole has already been subject to a variety of successful rezonings pre/during Cambie Corridor planning process, and pre the new Marpole Planning process underway (i.e. Safeway). Many of those debates will influence stakeholders’ participation and sense of realistic expectation of what a planning process can and cannot do. But after lobbying for 12 years to get a new planning process, we are hardly going to throw away the chance to have some say in the future of our neighbourhood. We have to give the process the best effort possible.

Despite a community’s desire to adhere to a concrete plan that has been drawn up through the efforts of many dedicated volunteers and groups, there seem to be many competing City and Regional plans/strategies that also get thrown into the mix for consideration. Whose ‘plan’ ultimately rules?

To whit, the 1979 Marpole Plan was specific in its recommendation that the new (at that time) Arthur Laing Bridge be dedicated solely for traffic to/from the Vancouver International Airport, not intended for commuter use. The Neighbourhood Planning committee feared the traffic impacts that would affect Marpole if the Bridge were to be opened to commuters to/from Richmond. We all know how that story ended.

As a resident and property owner in Marpole in the past 10 years I formed these impressions.

1. The traffic on Granville, Oak and Cambie were a problem. Too many cars, not enough transit. The same could be said on the east-west arterials.

2. There was a dearth of neighbourhood amenity. We lived on Olser, but had to walk to Granville to get neighbourhood goods. Some available on Oak, but not enough. What gives?

3. The mix between truck and car volume and public transit needs some work. Transit should get priority, thus reducing car volumes. Granville, Oak and Cambie were not designed for pedestrian use, much less for residential fronting. That black mark in Vancouver engineering & planning must be washed off.

What was interesting about ‘Marpole’ (why not re-introduce it as South Vancouver?) is that most of the platting aligned the blocks on a the north-south axis. We knew it was afternoon because the sun was in our kitchen, and we knew it was morning because it was in our living room.

A simple anomaly vis a vis other Vancouver platting could be used to give this area a distinct character.

Of course, given what we have seen for Cambie Gateway & corridor, there is little room to hope in what is coming at us in the next few years.

Yet, urbanism marches to a different drum, so this is all far from done. If we can just inject urban design principles into Vancouver planning a whole new day will dawn.

@jenables regarding the viaducts: I very much agree with you about the supposed success of closing the viaducts during the Olympics. It is not only a myth, it is quickly becoming a big lie, IMO, used by those on Council and benefitting landowners to suit their own ends.

The volume of traffic that use te viaducts on a daily basis – the average daily traffic or ADT- is roughly the same as that which use each of the three bridges into the downtown peninsula, about 40,000 ADT each.

Is there anyone in his right mind who would dare to suggest that the Cambie, Burrard or Lions Gate
Bridge should be permanently closed? Of course not. It would be patently insane to suggest doing anything like that. Yet some people feel that removing the only bridge serving East Vancouver is just peachy.

The key issue is threatening to worsen an already inadequate pattern of connectivity – streets – between NEFC, International Village, and Chinatown/Strathcona to and from downtown.
There are 5, count ’em, 5 blocs between Pender Street and Smithe Street where there s no direct link between The above-noted communities and downtown.
My one unswerving condition for removing the viaducts is to IMPROVE connectivity for all modes, including walkers, by bringing Georgia Street down to grade between the two arenas to a recofigured Pacific and Expo Boulevards into one grand , rather than two separated highways.

Equally importantly, this has to be implemented BEFORE either of these essential pieces of urban infrastructure is removed from use. To promise to replace connectivity at some vague time in the future after the “bridges” come down is asking the people of the affected communities to believe in te Tooth Fairy.

Oops, make that 4 other bridges into downtown. How could I have forgotten the Granville Bridge and it’s 8 lanes?

There is one overriding factor that has to be considered – the power of developers in this city. When I heard that a major developer was quietly buying property along Kingsway, I knew the game was up. Watch for a row of towers. As for consultation, this council doesn’t seem to know what it means.

Oh dear, Frank. It looks like my dear colleague is beginning to lose his marbles just a little bit: first he is the longest serving staffer at City Hall in the history of time (from 193-2004: now that’s civic dedication!), then he forgets about Granville Bridge (well, it is rather forgettable). But listen, it’s ok. I once forgot about Point Grey, it’s so innocuous and utterly unmemorable. Nonetheless, lest you other serial commentators think I am raining on Frank’s parade, let me just say that I will take his perceptive ideas and comments over most of your ramblings any day.