just imagine how many more people will not make it on the packed b line! Who cares, right? I guess you better start filling up kits too, it is also close to downtown. Come to think if it, so is the Granville rise. Richard thinks they might bike, hey, some of them might but thinking only in terms of ideals does not address reality. Perhaps you could also address my point about the other sites earmarked for 22-26 storey towers where existing affordable housing currently is.

A friend of mine just told me she was asked about interior designers for 10 units in one of Vancouver’s poshest DT towers. The 10 condos were recently bought by one foreign businessman (after sitting unsold for nearly 3 years). The designers have at least a year to work on concept, because the owner won’t be back in Vancouver until late 2014. No idea if/when they would actually be occupied, but clearly not before 2015 — six years after going on market.

Richard and MB and boohoo and others will be pleased to note the building is located a few steps from rapid transit, and that the owner of these 10 suites never, ever drives a car to work.

He commutes in a private jet.

A Dave,

Are we playing the ‘let’s base our decisions on random anecdotes’ game?

waltrys #185 you’re right I don’t want social housing too near to me. It brings down property values.

@A Dave

Yes, rich people own a lot of homes and can’t live in all of them at once. Realize that many are not condos, they are huge single family houses. Well, actully less than single family houses). So I guess by your logic, we should not build any single family houses anywhere just because a few are owned by rich people. What nonsense.

Please read this in a non sarcastic way. Boo, I honestly don’t know what you are referring to when you are saying I’m using extremes. Was it when i said that what you were saying made perfect sense if quality of life wasn’t an issue? I would argue that planning to dump 10,000 people into a neighborhood that is already bustling with people without any intention or budget (it was clarified at the gwac meeting that the city had not budgeted for amenities) for additional amenities can impact quality of life, wouldn’t you? Or was it something else? My suggestion that if it’s about density and being close to downtown that should apply elsewhere in the city?
It would be great if you had answered what I had said about the other towers planned for the “bullseye” in the zoning map… assuming you have looked at the gw emerging directions pdf?
Dave, you stated above the only way the poor could remain in the city was increasing the supply of social housing. I was saying there is existing affordable housing that people currently rent, working people under the poverty line who pay into the system, and there is no need other than pure selfish greed to destroy their homes. Considering that you already stated you can’t wait until the poor people (or socialist hordes- I noticed you used dehumanizing language for your fellow human beings right away) get evicted because nobody who is poor should be tainting the value of your commodity, it is apparent you lack concern for anyone but yourself. Since my concerns and yours will never line up, let’s just not, ok? Thanks for your illustrative comments, I will find a good use for them.

Skytrain’s ultimate capacity with 5 car trains is 25 700 pphpd. With Skytrain eventually radiating outwards in 4 directions, the Broadway/Commercial transit hub will have an inbound/outbound capacity of over 100 000 people per hour upon completion of the Central Broadway section of the M-Line. There is no other site (Safeway and surrounding area) that comes close to this capacity and catchment area. Of course high density.

I think radical is a strong word. The market will dictate how fast the neighborhood will grow, and with plenty of other desirable neighborhoods in Metro, we will not see radical growth in G/W. Really there are only a few sites that have been selected for high-rises, with the vast majority of the neighborhood being assigned low rise development. I’m not even sure there is much incentive to redevelop a 4 story building to a 6 story building. So other than the 6 or so new towers that will be well insulated from the rest of the neighborhood, change will happen at a snails pace.

@200

jenables,

It is your knee jerk reaction that because I support higher density here I must support wild tower construction everywhere. Why you have to leap to these conclusions is beyond me.

It’s the same knee jerk reaction from many posters here, if you support one thing (or even just not bash it) you therefore support all these other things. That’s dumb.

Why you have to leap to these conclusions is beyond me.

Because: Internet.

In the world of the internet comment board, there is only A or B as choices. There is no such thing as C, D, E…

Or as it’s sometimes referred to, “nuance”.

@Everyman #215. Great idea. Or rather, a better idea than just market condos.

@teririch #217. Located an expired listing for 259 Powell at $575 (shared bathroom), and another one with rents “starting” at $475.

Michael Gordon # 18

Just noticed that you are taking a group of students on a tour of housing in the Lower Mainland this week, including Newport Village in Port Moody. As it happens I live there, having moved here five years ago.
I live in a four storey block and find the place as a piece of community planning works remarkably well. A simple street pattern of four storey terraces with small specialty stores at ground level creating a very friendly street, there is even a square which on special occasions is pedestrian only.
In the background are five skyscrapers which I think are way too tall, but as they tell me they are helping provide the customers ! In short I am within 5 to 10 minutes of everything I need without the use of a car.
I would be very interested in what your group thought of Newport, and some comparison with the other projects would be very interesting.

I agree with Frank. One does not simply drop in a form of development as a proposal and hope for pie-in-the-sky buy in from the public, or that few in the middle of summer won’t notice.

I would sooner trust Frank, and other non-Vancouver city planners I’ve heard from who have been able to point out shortcomings in the process. Debating the process is quite legitimate and obvious given how often the criticism of lack of consultation keeps coming up, along with the reliable and repetitive Vision Vancouver retort that the public is simply “misinformed”.

Like boohoo says, enough with going round and round in circles.

Hmmn, I’ve often thought their should be some kind of symbol system that denotes the tone of an online comment. Like œ could mean “take at face value and without offense” § Could mean sarcasm þ could mean “I’m teasing you” ¿ Could be no, I’m not feigning ignorance, I’m genuinely confused and of course ð could be “I’m responding with anger!”
Yes, I just figured out how to do those symbols today.

RON@222 and Michael @18

I’ve frequently taken or guided visiting profesisonals and other urbanists to both Newport Village and Suter Brook. Both are very noteworthy examples of suburban placemaking with density.

Their heights and densities anticipated the overly long-awaited Evergreen Line, originally proposed to be a surface LRT running in the median of the extremely wide Guildford Way to Coquitlam Centre, which is also worth a visit, Michael. The village green and high street there are shaping up nicely, IMO.

Bosa’s Newport Centre is a good example of a “bowl” configuration, where the towers encircle and frame the lowrise mixed-use centre. The opposite (higher in the middle) approach is more often the case, as can be seen at the recent – and more urban – and equally noteworthy Suter Brook development by Onni.

An interesting side note: Port Moody required an office (work) component as a condition of approval. Both developments did this as standalone buildings on prominent corners. Certainly a desirable land use when transit is adequate for the purpose. (See above discussion WRT Safeway at Broadway and Commecial area.)

Boo what is your question? I’ll answer it. Mine pertains to the original cov plan where they had marked several sites with Bs and Cs in and around the Safeway (which was marked with an A) which are currently inhabited and existing actual affordable housing. Do you think they should be adding more expensive density while taking away affordable housing which is in dwindling supply? So that more people can live “right by the skytrain” even though buses are already packed? Are there a lot of people
who WANT to live right beside two skytrain stations?

I never said 10,000 people overnight, but 10,000 iswhat they are planning for. I went to two open houses and a meeting with the planners and they said the cost of land meant they couldn’t make any new parks, and that they had not budgeted for amenities. They obviously COULD do it, but they would rather allow a developer to bend the rules that are in place for a reason to provide amenities. You know how that works. Those of us who live here love our neighborhood the way it is, and that is a place where all walks of life can co-exist without being judged. Diversity is good. This is one of the only places in the city where low income families can raise their children. Until I see evidence of a shortage of market rate condos and a NEED to build more, I don’t understand why there would be urgency to change it here. Now, I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. also, I thought you lived in the cambie area so isn’t that already happening? Don’t you think it is a real shame that these out of scale developments are being forced on neighborhoods?
Also, from the tyee..
“Me, I wanted to know more about those longstanding city policies, so I read the documents Jackson referred to. Remarkably, the Transit Village Plan indicates that the area already meets the study’s minimum-density definition of transit-oriented development, and if it were built out based on existing zoning it would substantially exceed that threshold.

So I emailed the senior quartet again, explaining that the two big-picture reports call for density around transit stations but say nothing about the degree, form or height. I also noted that the Transit Village Plan calls for three towers ranging from 18 to 24 storeys on the Safeway site. “Am I missing anything?” I got a call from the mayor’s office to defend his honour, and then Jackson phoned to allow that my interpretation of the reports was correct.”

If you look at the artists rendering of these towers they look ridiculous. I’m well aware the city said they will back off on the Safeway site but what about the other 22-26 storey towers they planned? Listen, the city has done all sorts of unsavory things. They don’t seem to realize that there IS consequence, and that consequence is a well deserved lack of trust.

Yeah I’m more familiar with other cities but doesn’t Vancouver collect DCC’s with every new unit? That would be on top of any CAC’s or other amenity fees? DCC’s that go towards park acquisition, sewer, water, etc…

@Chris Keam #233

“Amusing that people think that the purely random fact of which geographic area in which they popped out of the womb entitles them to some kind of preferential treatment w/r/t to living there.”

No doubt you feel the same about aboriginal land claims.

@Bill 234 scores a direct hit on the good ship Sanctimonious! I’m looking forward to hearing CK try to wriggle out of that one. In his attempt to score a shot in jenables he seems to be saying cold hard cash should be the only determining factor in who gets to live here. I’m glad to hear that he apparently thinks providing social housing is a waste of time after all, if people can’t afford the rents here, they should move to Spuzzum.

Bill:

Land claims strike me to be an issue of property rights and pre-existing ownership. A faulty comparison IMO. I support the legal transfer of land for an agreed upon price as do most folks AFAIK.

Brilliant:

Not sure how you made that huge leap of logic. Not trying to ‘score’ a shot on anyone. I just find it funny when people get excoriated for telling the truth.

Ck – maybe you should lurk on up to #65 and read the comment that started it all, then preach it.

@rph #221:

After I had posted that link, I read an article in Van. Metro on how the ‘landlord’ is renovicting the building.

He is building in bathrooms and some sort of small kitchens in order to attract students etc. vs. the current residents, andof course, get more rent $$ .

ck- #65.

I stopped posting here because it seems to bring out my worst qualities of sarcasm and combativeness. Also, because it’s not moderated and I’m not the only person who seems incapable of respectful dialogue, the conversations quickly devolve into uselessness. Just not a good use of time IMO.

I just found the idea of entitlement by birth to be so quaint and counter to the idea of equality that those who would tout such an out-dated notion really brought a bit of gentle ribbing upon themselves. I also think Dave made some valid points about how people think. I don’t share his enthusiasm for those perspectives, but they are true nonetheless.

http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=14

“the idea of equality”. Even CK will probbly admit that this is an ideal to strive for, not something that will ever be achieved. People aren’t equal, they’re different.
“the purely random fact of which geographic area in which they popped out of the womb”. In our case there was nothing random about it. We chose the neighborhood we wanted our children to grow up in. It was the same one we chose to live in.
Absolutists like CK abhor the very idea of choice. After all, people might make bad choices and then where would we be?