The Urban Design Panel would seem, on the surface at least, to play an important role in how development occurs in our city. There are 13 members, and they are listed on the cities UDP website. http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/udp/udp.html#Panel

I presume that this rize project went before the UDP, and was given its blessing, or was it. Does the UDP play any meaningful role in the decision making process because it seems like they have the most important role, but I don’t hear them mentioned.

Our Mayor on the 150′ just after Council approved Rize with only one dissenting vote:

“It’s important to remember that under the current zoning, the developer could build a 150 foot building, with no amenities – no money for arts, no funding for affordable housing – without having to come to city council.”
http://www.mayorofvancouver.ca/?p=2319
penultimate paragraph

The statement makes one thing clear.

“The documents Lee refer to simply do not say what he/she says they do (and this applies to the more recent comments too.) Lee’s argument is now all over the map and trying to take the broadest possible interpretation of any sentence in the guidelines that sounds like it might support their case if you just relax your mind and let your vision go a little fuzzy.” Mark Allerton @ 52

LMAO, yah we should all just dismiss Lee’s comments…..I mean the guy is only a former Property Use Inspector with The City of Vancouver charged with enforcing the City’s Zoning and Development By-Law, what would he know (yes Mark I am being sarcastic).

As for your other comment its not even worth a response, you have fallen so far off the credibility list.

You should heed Michelle @48 “And Mark Allerton, please do us a favor and bring a strong argument to the table next time, if you have one!”

The mayor issued a statement shortly after the vote reminding the public the developer could have built a 150-foot building without having to go before council. This originated from Councilor Meggs’s leading question from the Council meeting, to which the rezoning planner Yardley McNeil responded, “That’s correct..”

It is in fact not correct

Lee Chapelle

One day later, it seems to me that Lee still has it right. According to the rules, no 150-height is deemed appropriate on the Rize.

The point of re-zoning is to put the project into a stage where Council can do whatever with it. The incentive is clearly the Vancouver Charter, and the sole route to collect $6.25 million, which should be amended. CD-1 re-zoning should be the exception, rather than the rule (cancer) running rampant through our city.

Hopefully the task force on affordability will have something to say about how the CACs are affecting the property market.

I am not suggesting that community amenity fees should not be charged. It has just become increasingly clear that this is the wrong way to go about it.

Furthermore, the kind of planning that is being practiced in this city—and by extension the rest of the region—is now outmoded and arcane. It is not taking us where we need to go. The almost total breakdown of trust between the citizenry, its Council, and its professional staff, is the clearest symptom that the process is long overdue a complete overhaul.

We need principled and fact-based planning. Take this thread as the clearest indication anyone could ask for of a bureaucracy run amuck… with our money.

Thanqu Lee for your insightful comments and thanqu Frances for giving them the light of day. Fiddling with this stuff is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. What you have revealed, perhaps inadvertently, is a broken system . . .

Vancouver’s DPA process is broken!

Vancouver’s design panel is broken!

Vancouver’s public participation process is broken!

Vancouver’s planning process is broken!

Vancouver’s design professionals, architects, landscape architects and planners are non-functional, habitual and formulaic.

The system relies too much on theoretical statistics and quantities and insufficiently on experiential, spatial relationships within a functional environment. The dichotomy between public space and private has not been explored.

Vancouver’s development is dominated by business oriented concerns that apparently do not have a sensitive reading of the terrain. On the other hand what is interpreted as heritage is often thread bare and worn out enduring sentimental attachment but, nevertheless, in need of renewal.

The majority in the community does not participate for various reasons. A minority work hard only to have their views, as often as not, ignored. The process excludes a heuristics learning curve as the plan evolves.

I think anyone interested should simply read the guidelines Lee points to carefully while looking at a map of the area and see if they think Lee’s interpretation makes sense. I contend it does not, but I leave others to make up their own mind.

MA 58 [emphasis mine]

A Community Plan should be clear and explicit. From the start at post#4 your argumentation has been on weak footing:

“Lee’s link to the guidelines document is a bit ambiguous …”

I suggest this is ambiguity misplaced.The ambiguity is clearly, and possibly deliberately, in the Community Plan, the zoning by-law, and the design guidelines.

These regulations are not based on urban facts or design principles. For example, as I have mentioned earlier, according to urban design principles, the height of a building is set in proportion to the width of the fronting right of way, or square, and with consideration for solar penetration (in northern climates we want the sun to reach the street everyday).

In the new paradigm, we zone by building type, rather than use, when designing neighbourhoods. The assumption is that the overall zoning is in place, and urban design work is detail work to get the resulting quality of place to resonate with the human experience of place.

These are the ‘sustainability’ issues of ‘good’ [or ‘measurable’] urbanism. We are not seeing them discussed. There, and not with the person making the arguments, is where our attention should focus.

The Stella as far as I know is 3.0 FSR and subject to different height rules.

The Rize is the block across the ‘heart of Mount Pleasant’ block. What the Plan (and its assorted several instruments) is clearly stating is that the built form on the south side of Broadway should reflect the built form on north side of Broadway.

For the sake of CACs plan, water and baby were thrown out. Tub was kept. Hippo was put in it.

@subverta
Isn’t the stella building at the corner of 12th and Kingsway built under the same C3-A guidelines? Its at 13 stories tall so would be at least 120′. Doesn’t this suggest that you can build to this height under zoning without a rezoning?

Excellent question!

The Stella was required to provide an amenity contribution to “earn” the extra height, including a public open plaza space, contrary to the statements by Mayor and Council that extra height would be granted under current zoning without amenity contributions. And in the Urban Design Guidelines which were used in the Stella application and which would apply here, on Page 6 Sec 6.2, “Higher buildings should be permitted immediately adjacent to the “gateway”.. “to frame the view”. The Gateway is situated at 12th Avenue, right where the Stella is located “..but development should be reduced from this point, (or terraced down..)”

In other words according to the guidelines The Rize would qualify for *less* extra height to satisfy the “terracing down” requirement, not more, *and* would be required to make public amenity contributions as other developments have, both contrary to the statements coming out City Hall.

@Mark “at least one person at City hall with presumably equivalent qualifications (or better) who is claiming Lee’s interpretation is wrong.”

I would love to hear the arguments. Do you know what they might be?

A *lot* of additional height (more than double allowable) granted without amenity contribution? Why now?

Taller than the Stella when the UDG clearly call for “terracing down from the “gateway” for the widening of views”? Based on what? Because we say so?

What about density? Are we to believe that they ever would have been satisfied to build a 150′ buidling at 3.0 fsr??

Talk about circling the wagons…

These silly rationalizations after the fact just add insult to injury. Instead of all the transparent spin I would much prefer if they had simply been honest and admitted that the public consultation process failed to get the desired result but we decided a long time ago that this project was the right thing to do and we’re doing it. Sorry for wasting your time.

@brilliant – I think it is really important to continue to get the message out how business is being done at City Hall. Vancouver’s neighbourhoods are for sale for pocket change to wealthy developers. It’s importnat now because for the first time in years there is a City-wide community based political alternative, NSV.

And I wrote a letter to the editor of the Courier about that remark of Garr’s, but I thought his article overall was fairly balanced.

Which Chris were you referring to then Mira?

You’re welcome to play the fool. I’m sure you’ll find the costume a perfect fit.

Have a nice day sad clown.

“What do zoning rules really allow for controversial developments?”

That question can be interpreted in about as many ways as the Mt. Pleasant Plan. And the confusion about to what that “Plan” says and/or intends say or to achieve has been amply conformed by the very interesting and informative, but taken as a whole, confused discussion here. So, a bit more confusion won’t hurt.

It seems to have been forgotten, but Vancouver in fact, does have a master plan, it’s called the” Zoning Map” and a “Zoning By-Law” and “Guidelines” that go with it.

TEAM made a conscious decision in the 70’s not to have a citywide plan. Our thinking was that Vancouver was already comprehensively zoned with little, if any undeveloped land. Vancouver’s transportation networks, the downtown, neighbourhoods, etc. were all established, and accepted. In addition, a “master” plan for the City was considered to be too unwieldy and inflexible. We decided to focus on individual neighbourhoods and areas within neighbourhoods that needed attention. So began the process we are now discussing.

Many of the existing zoning regulations were considered to inflexible, so we created the discretionary zoning system and zonings such as RM3A from RM3 and C3A from C3. This allowed for flexibility in design to respond to the varying site conditions, being a good neighbour, shadowing, eyes on the street, etc. that Frank, Lee and others have spoken eloquently of above.

A City Master Plan remains unnecessary and would be an expensive, time consuming and in the end, inflexible and instantly out of date tool. Our energies and limited dollars should be being put to focusing on neighbourhood and area plans, regulations and guidelines that are generated by the neighbourhood in collaboration with the City, and then all but the most exceptional projects should be processed via the Conditional Use Development Permit Board process. This regulatory system must be respected and adhered to. Community Plans and Guidelines must be written to not allow large trucks to be driven through them. Staff should not be or feel intimidated to ignore or misrepresent this process.

Can we do this? How? By who? When will it start?

Looks like Geoff Meggs responded to this just now:

http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2012/04/25/rize-revisited-why-a-150-foot-tower-was-possible-even-without-a-rezoning/

ThinkOutsideABox @ 73

And this is why he is a perfect fit for Vision, he can lie through his teeth, warp a situation to suit his needs and then try and extract an apology from the public that called him out on it by trying to make us out to look like the ill informed bad guys.

On one hand he says he approved the Rize project based on it following the MPCP and on the other he cannot quote any direct reference stating in writing that a 150′ foot height was allowable without a rezoning. Ummm, maybe because its not there!

Got a message for you sell out Meggs, we see right through your agenda and no amount of back peddling is going to change that! I am just curious to have a quick peek at your offshore accounts to see how much Developers greased your palms!

Going to the store first thing in the morning and buying him a baby soother to suck on while he sulks……its okay for him to screw over citizens that spoke out on mass against this project and completely ignore the valid arguements as to why this project needed to go back to the drawing board before rezoning was even issued but its another to try and dupe the public into believing something that is not true!

Lee @ 72, as someone who helped draft some of the early variations of these conditional use policies, and who has worked with such regulations and guidelines for the past 40 years I have some familiarity with how to read and interpret them, and I agree with your interpretation.

Based on what I have heard at the hearings, my own review of the zoning and project information, and the information and analysis here, it is troubling indeed when it appears:

• a neighbourhood plan is written so poorly you can drive a very big Category ‘C’ truck through it;

• Councillors repeatedly lead speakers with their questions;

• staff and Councillors make incorrect statements;

• fundamental information such as how much retail space is in the project is difficult to find and unclear on the City’s site and on the architect’s drawings;

• perspectives are not accurately drawn.

I leave it to the readers here to conclude whether there is a pattern, what kind, and for what purpose?

I just read this on Councilor Meggs website: “The Mount Pleasant Plan states that with respect to three large sites (of which the Rize site is one), development proposals will “pursue additional height and density in select locations” and this would provide the DP Board with even stronger grounds upon which to base a decision about greater building height. My decision to support the Rize project was based on a close reading of the community plan.
I believe the proposal before council was consistent with that plan and the height reflected a decision to use the Rize site as a focal point for more density and height.”

It absolutely amazes me how the intent of the community Plan is lost in one and a half years.

The CLG received a DRAFT Mount Pleasant Community Plan dated October 21, 2010. In that DRAFT Plan at 5.1 (i) Rize Alliance Development site someone, the City/Rize who knows, wrote “pursue additional density and height beyond that permitted under the current C-3A zoning”. The CLG said change that wording because the community did not say this. Although they said yes to the question do you what more height and density at this site, in their written comments they specified low to mid rise buildings. So the wording was changed to “Support the design of an ‘iconic’ (landmark) building when granting permission for higher buildings.”

It was never intended that this site would have a density over the current zoning of 3.0 FSR or a height over the current 70 feet for this site.
More height and density means more than 30 feet and 1.0 FSR.

Councilor Meggs check your own City records on this fact.

I am so sick and tired of your and City staffs attitude. Yes, staff and you are “Making it up as you go along”. Enough already! Check your attitude.

GNR, 79, quotes Councilor Meggs: “… My decision to support the Rize project was based on a close reading of the community plan…”

Yet the bright hardworking Councilor Meggs asked planning staff just before the rezoning vote a question implying that he, Meggs, believed there was only one large site in Mount Pleasant on which CAC’s could be delivered:
“As I read the plan … Is it not almost the only site where we anticipate significant rezoning that will produce community amenity contributions ?”

From http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120417/regu20120417ag.htm
Unfinished Business Clip 1, ~11:30:

I find it difficult to believe that Councilor Meggs, given that he had carefully read the Mount Pleasant Community Plan and attended hours of public hearing, did not know that THREE large sites were identified in that plan .

(For two of those sites, but not the Rize site, the plan suggests “pursu[ing] additional density and height beyond … C-3A zoning” — p. 25, 26 of the plan)

And I find it difficult to believe that the bright, hardworking Councillor Meggs did not know immediately that the answer given to his important question by the responsible member of planning staff was untrue on a crucial matter:

“That is correct we think this one of the 3 sites identified for higher density and higher height beyond C3A. This one in particular is the largest of the three where we think that is the site where you will achieve greatest height and density and the consequent greatest CAC’s …”

Page 25 of the Plan, bottom right has a drawing showing “possible development at Kingsgate Mall” (one of the three ‘large sites’ of the plan). The Rize site is in the background in the drawing and looks (and is) much smaller than the Kingsgate Mall site.

The wooden 3D model that was displayed in Council Chambers during most of the public hearings showed clearly the three sites and their relative size and Meggs circled that 3D model more than once.

The Rize site is ~ 1.25 acres; and, I am told, Kingsgate Mall is ~ 3.2 acres and IGA ~ 2.3.

Again this misrepresentation to Council is not trivial — larger sites can be developed to higher FSR’s more easily and more elegantly than smaller sites, larger sites can often support — in an aesthetic sense — higher buildings than smaller sites. And larger sites will produce larger CAC’s than smaller sites if rezoned to the same FSR.

And the plan implicitly called for rezoning on the larger two of the three identified large sites but not on the smallest, the Rize site.

For me Megg’s claim that 150′ is allowable under exisiting zoning at Broadway and Kingsway is to be seen in the context of his asking a question before the Rize vote that, at best, suggests he has never read the Community Plan, and his subsequent ready acceptance of a statement by staff, promoted by his question, that is clearly false on a non-trivial matter — the relative size of the Rize site compared to the other ‘large sites’ in the Community Plan.

Community plan: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cpp/mountpleasant/pdf/MPcommunityplan.pdf

Ha, ha, ha…
“We cannot just go back there right away to vote on it, and approve it. It would be too obvious. Let’s move around the table a few more times…”
Classic Glissando! 🙂