Following my story on the tulip tree (see previous post), I’m getting emails from some people who live in the neighbourhood. Here’s one:
Hon. Mayor Robertson & City Council:
I wrote previously concerning the tulip tree and the development of 1245 Harwood St. on April 22nd. Since you’re voting tomorrow, I would like to add a few more comments.
I live with a great view of the tulip tree, and would not like to see it cut down; I also don’t know how it can be declared heritage with another development in future on the neighbouring property where 40 % of its roots are in danger. I also don’t see how the roots would not be adversely affected by moving the main house on the property so close to it. Furthermore, the light the tree receives will be greatly reduced if a new tower taller than the tree is built as proposed from alley to street. This will then place the tree between 2 high rises. The supposed benefit for the neighbourhood in terms of viewing the tree will be greatly reduced.
Concerning benefits for the neighbourhood and what we want, I feel the way the consultative process often goes is we’re consulted, listened to, and then the plan goes ahead as the developers wish, frequently ignoring the wishes of the people who live in the neighbourhood, and who City Hall is representing. I read in the Vancouver Sun today the property is held by offshore interests – what interest would they have about my neighbourhood except how much profit they can make.
I sadly feel that the end result will be another very expensive condo building that will probably not be fully occupied, not fit in with the neighbourhood, and add zip to badly needed affordable housing.
I really had high hopes with this current council, and I would like to feel encouraged by some innovative thinking about the density problem. Increased density given to owners of heritage properties needs to be re-examined. It creates properties that look like something out of a science fiction film with a turn of the century house and an 18 story glass tower on top of it. Is this really the best we can do? I wonder how this city is viewed by the global architectural community. To the objective viewer, it looks like profit dominates our building strategy, not affordability, not neighbourhood needs or wants, and certainly not aesthetics.
Before you vote, please consider my comments which are echoed by many in this neighbourhood.
Thank you,
Don Richardson
2 responses so far ↓
1 Derek W // Jun 9, 2010 at 5:45 pm
“Trees were so rare in that country, and they had to make such a hard fight to grow, that we used to feel anxious about them, and visit them as if they were persons. It must have been the scarcity of detail in that tawny landscape that made detail so precious.” -W.S. Cather
Vancouver has little enough physical history as it is. It would be nice if it could be preserved.
2 tille Campbell // Jun 11, 2010 at 1:18 pm
The tree story as we’ve had it all this week, is spin by developers in pursuit of a waiver of zoning regulations re height, density and proximity. The tree itself is beautiful. I see it every day from my window. It would be a shame to lose it. But this developer’s plan to ‘save’ it is a devil’s deal.
The story of good works by sensitive and visionary architects, a beautiful 100 year old tree and a touching old dead lady is unbelievable. And that should have been a clue. If the lady had seriously wanted to save the tree and preserve the neighbourhood, she could have left her property to a non- profit day care centre rather than conspiring with developers to push up the property value through a crafty manouvre to gain exemption from zoning laws and build an up market condo tower. Thank God the Vancouver Sun finally wrote the whole story and called a tulip tree – a poplar. Shame on the rest of you.
Leave a Comment