Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Tower debate on Commercial Drive ratchets up as anti-tower candidates take over Grandview-Woodlands Area Council

March 7th, 2016 · 66 Comments

There couldn’t be a more perfect decisions game than what is going on in Grandview-Woodlands these days.

A respected agency that serves the mentally ill, desperate to find a way to renew and expand, partners with a developer to rebuild at the corner of Venables and Commercial, using its own property, the developer’s two sites on either side, and city land. Thirty units of housing plus a new centre if the developer can get the density to build 200 condos.

On the other side, a core group of opponents in the community who say, yes, we appreciate the work the Kettle Friendship Society has done, but we don’t want anything higher than four stories on the Drive, no matter how many mentally ill people this might help.

The debate has been bubbling for three years. Last week, Kettle jointly released with Boffo Properties a visualization of the project, presumably to demonstrate that a 12-storey project can fit in and isn’t any more obtrusive than the tower nearby.

But the opponents are still opposed. As part of the battle, they developed a slate and got them all elected to the Grandview-Woodlands Area Council on the weekend. And they’ve put out a proposal that the city donate its land (worth $5 million or so) to Kettle so that it doesn’t have to rely on the developer’s condo profit for its housing.

(I’ve included the full proposal from the group below.)

While that seems like one obvious solution, it would be interesting to hear from the group how they think the city would justify that to every other neighbourhood that has found itself being asked to absorb significant new density so that the city can leverage some social housing or rental in the project.

Every one of those neighbourhoods would probably like the city — or someone — to contribute millions so that the proposed tower near them could be reduced: Strathcona and 955 East Hastings, Yaletown and the Brenhill project with its rebuild of Jubilee House, the West End and the several rental towers there, Oakridge and the massive development planned with its seniors and rental housing components, every tower that’s about to be proposed along Burrard, which will have social-housing units as part of the requirement, and the many others out there I am sure you all can help list.

COMMUNITY PROPOSES VIABLE AND CREATIVE ALTERNATIVE TO MASSIVE TOWER PROPOSAL AT VENABLES AND COMMERCIAL

Vancouver. The NO TOWER Coalition is proposing a viable and creative alternative to a massive three-tower development under discussion in the Grandview-Woodland community.

The alternative would see the City of Vancouver provide available land (a city-owned parking lot on the site) to the Kettle Friendship Society as an outright grant. The Kettle would sell its existing building (also on the site) and use the proceeds to construct up to 25,000 square feet of community service and housing space, on the land, provided free by the city.

Estimates put the cost of a 25,000 square foot, four-storey structure, with service space and 30 small units of supportive housing at $5.2 million, excluding land costs. The Kettle’s current building was assessed in 2015 at $2,068,000 million. The city parking lot was assessed in 2015 at $2,259,000.

“We have looked carefully at the footprint,” says Sue Garber, a NO TOWER spokesperson. “The City of Vancouver and the Kettle together own over half the total square footage of the land in question. With the city contribution, this approach could work very well.”

“We think this is a very viable alternative. And it is much preferable to public land being turned over to a developer for tremendous profit, with so many unfortunate impacts on the neighbouring community. These lands are currently in community hands. They should stay that way,” Garber notes.

“This alternative would provide the Kettle what it needs and would spare the Commercial Drive community from the devastating effects of a massive three-tower complex, with associated rising land costs and displacement of nearby rental and non-profit housing.”

The proposal also suggests the adjoining street be permanently closed to car traffic for a pedestrian “piazza” which would extend the low-rise and human scale of Commercial Drive north towards the renovated York Theatre and Hastings Street.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • spartikus

    So the CoV should pay for this? Not the province, which was/is the level of government responsible for funding these things (according to the Kettle Society’s tax return, 77% of their funding came from the BC Gov)?

    This would be tacitly supporting the BC Liberal’s agenda of downloading services onto municipalities, no? And with this precedent, how does the CoV say no to other groups? All to preserve the urbanist sensibilities of certain residents of a particular neighbourhood?

    These are questions the No Tower group needs to answer. Like it or not, the two stories that have come out of Commercial Drive lately is “no to density” and “no to bike lanes”. There’s a narrative building.

  • A Taxpayer

    “Like it or not, the two stories that have come out of Commercial Drive lately is “no to density” and “no to bike lanes” There’s a narrative building. ”

    Yes, they have got it right on one of those issues.

  • A Taxpayer

    This is a bad proposal, not because the City can’t afford it but rather it is an inappropriate use of taxpayer’s money. I don’t often agree with spartikus but he has got it right on this issue – the Provincial Government is responsible for social housing and the City is foolish to take the lead in this area.

  • jenables

    If that’s really the only two things you are reading, might I suggest you are building your own narrative?

  • jenables

    No, the point about Adanac towers is more about floor space ratio, though you seem to have missed it. You cannot define affordability in terms of “less than a house”; this city is way too fucked up for that.

  • jenables

    Look at this rendering, which I received on a flyer last week, that shows the Adanac towers, at 12 stories towering over the new development. When I see something like this, I have to ask myself why they would present something this way.

  • jenables

    The kettle has provided services for mentally ill people for decades, but is the social housing aspect a CAC? I thought that was the component that allowed them to ask for more density.

  • jenables

    I’m pretty sure the no tower group thinks the province should be funding social housing for the kettle, not a private, for-profit developer. Don’t you agree?

  • jenables

    They just found 55 million to buy the arbutus greenway.

  • Keith

    The taxpayer will pay. If you want the province to spend money on the poor and disposessed, these are the same people who froze the minimum wage for a decade and the disability welfare rate for nine years. The more the city supports the people the province has ignored for a long time, the bigger the case for more tax points.

    Commercial drive has plenty of density. Not accounted for, paid in cash, plenty of people living in one house, untaxed density.

  • A Taxpayer

    That is comparing apples to turnips.

  • jenables

    Just sayin’…

  • A Taxpayer

    The Mayor has unilaterally declared that he is going to end homelessness which puts the pressure on him to deliver, not the Provincial government. And do you really think the government would ever give the City “tax points” to spend as it likes? The City should stick to picking up garbage and filling in potholes rather than constantly encroaching on areas where the senior governments have jurisdiction.

  • Keith

    The mayor doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of ending homelessness, the homeless have already said they prefer the street to the shelter space on offer. Trudeau has already intimated that cities in Canada need more resources (tax powers). Who has jurisdiction on affordable housing? In my lifetime I’ve seen solutions from all levels of government, although the feds have been absent since the Chretien administration.

    City just offered up serious amounts of land, all they need is 500 mill in funding to utilize it. Will the province and feds pony up, and if the feds get back into funding housing here, how much will they spend in the rest of Canada?

  • A Taxpayer

    Social housing is an element of social welfare and the responsibility of the provincial government. There may be a role for the other levels of government but in fact there is only one taxpayer. The taxpayers of Vancouver should not be expected to pay more relative to the taxpayers of say Burnaby or Surrey.

    The issue of “affordable” housing is strictly an issue of supply and demand and any government initiative should be assessed against its impact on the supply of and demand for housing. For example, assisting first time home buyers may have its merits but will only increase demand and have no impact on prices. Restricting or taxing foreign ownership may reduce demand but may be difficult to implement if foreign buyers engage residents to purchase on their behalf.

    Supply can really only be affected by density given that the amount of land is generally fixed. If you want to increase the supply of housing, which may have an impact on prices, then you have to accept a greater density. The consolation to the property owners around the proposed development is higher property values that allowing greater density will bring. It may not do much for renters but that is just one of the disadvantages of renting instead of owning.

  • A Taxpayer

    If you had said the City found $6,000,000 to get the bike share program up and running and then another million each year in costs/foregone parking revenue I would have agreed with you. Subsidizing the social housing is less of a waste of taxpayers money than the bike share program.

←  Older Comments
 →