Here are the levels of car commuting which are low along good transit corridors.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/vanmap/6236539/story.html

So, yes, it looks like towers and transit at least correspond to lower levels of automobile use.

The developers rep stated that 40,000 people come to vancouver every year,stats canada says we grow by 5,ooo per year so if he is correct he failed to mention the 35,000 per year that leave,Misrepresentation?The renderings were clearly not correct,a professional making this obvious a mistake unlikely.Misrepresentation?
Geoff Meggs saying that this would be the tallest building in the area for the next 100 yrs within 5 0r 10 minutes of planning saying Kingsgate mall is another site that is ripe for large redevelopment.Misrepresentation?
When the truth seems to not be good enough to justify this project,it probably isn’t justifiable.
Finally,as Bill McCreery said we will se who council serves,the coomunity or the developer,frankly I am putting my money on the developer simply because the developer put its money into the coffers of Vision Vancouver

@Richard 97,98

This shows that people who have access to transit are more likely to take transit, but it doesn’t say anything about how the form of the building encourages transit or what “transit oriented development” is. As I said in my earlier post are we just saying that a building coincidentally near a transit station is “transit oriented development?”

If whatever we were building on the Rize site had zero or little parking, or if it were an office building with a major bike locker and shower area I’d say it was encouraging transit, but the Rize appears to me a condo like any other. Transit oriented by coincidence I suppose but I don’t think its anything that warrants any acclaim.

Tiktaalik 103

The bottom line is though, that building forms that allow the most people to live, shop and work close to transit will pretty obviously outperform those that don’t.

Back to towers, there have been some built in places like NYC that don’t include any parking.

I agree that less parking would be better at the Rize. They did only include the minimum amount required by the city. Now I suppose they could have worked out a deal with the city to include even less. At this point, I don’t know if they tried or not. That said, besides a place like NYC, I suspect that there would be few such developments in North America that would include this relatively small amount of parking.

@ Sean Bickerton 87

Density at transit stations should be a good idea.

But consider this. Building more density at this time close to downtown to take advantage of current transit may not be as smart as it sounds.

Why? Because of two things: buses and SkyTrain already bursting at the seams during peak hours (which are getting longer) on main arterials.

And now, TransLink cannot expand fleets, cars or service due to revenue and taxation limitiations. So you will end up with more people at those hubs, that try to crowd onto what we have. Not pretty.

Hopefully, a lot of them will be ambulatory, or ride their bikes, a lot.

Building all that transit BEFORE density was considered, shows as a bit of a disaster right now. You may never ‘catch up” with demand…on either side of the equation.

I think that density right now is really an excuse to build more units from which to collect much needed property tax revenues. Nothing more, nothing less.

We seem unable (unwilling?) to forward plan our communities in a way that is truly sustainable. It’s all couched in rhetoric and catch phrases of “transit”, “sustainability” and “affordability”. And it appears we get none of these things.

Someone always forgets to include “economic viability’, “economic growth”, “cost” and “ecomomic forecasting and planning” in the mix. Fancy that!

All that aside, this project should really be labelled “Neighbourhood Up-Rizing”. Totally bobbled from so many aspects, imho. It may well serve as a model to local communites for a generation to come.

And not in a good way.

@ Silly Season

bingo.

Lee @ #107

I was being sarcastic . . .

“I was being sarcastic . . .”

I realize that, you do that a lot, and the intent of your sarcasm was to mock those who are making the accusations of impropiety. It clearly conveyed that the very idea that Rize is using deceptive marketing was ludicrous. The fact is, anyone who is paying attention can see what they’re doing. They have been doing it from the beginning and it just getting more and more blatant. Compressed “artists’ renderings” that make the building look half its actual size. That is unprofessional conduct and is itself enough to have the application rejected in my view.

Frank @ 91,

I accept that from what I’ve said my position may not be as clear as it should be. Part of the confusion results from looking a realistic solution that might work in these circumstances – that’s the 15-17 storeys, less 1 floor of retail, 4.5 FSR suggestion – and at the same time responding to the various comments of others in this conversation and thinking about what might or should have been.

I assure you, I am not sitting on a fence. Here’s where I do sit:

1) in an ideal world this process, which is unfortunate for all involved, could have been avoided; there is an approved C3A zoning that allows a conditional approval of up to 3.0 FSR; the C3A By-law is very explicit in defining what has to be satisfied in order to get that 3.0 density (it’s interestingly, similar to my own list, but more completely thought through); the Mt. Pleasant Plan, IMO as I’ve said above, is not sufficiently clear when it simply says this site can be considered for “additional height”; in the absence of such clarification one must conclude that the requirements of 4.7, 4.10 and 5.0 and the references in the Mt.P. Plan regarding neighbourhood character must be, but have not been satisfied; the neighbourhood scale and character, and the complexities of Watson Street and the bike lane in particular make adding to much additional density to this particular site very challenging; it’s also difficult to accept that an increase in density, which was not specified in the Mt. P. Plan, can be justified; so ideally it would be preferable to start again and follow due process and the rules;

However,

2) as above will Council have the courage to do this? it’s doubtful;

hence, let’s find a compromise that works; at 15 storeys, 4.5 FSR; doing so helps to improve some of the problems created by the current 5.0+ proposal, at least to the point the City has responded in a meaningful way to the proposal’s shortcomings, the community voices hopefully will be able to accept the revised proposal, and the developer will still make a very good return on their investment; (interestingly, eliminating 1 floor of retail allows the developer to have 1 more floor in the tower while lowering the bulk of the base)

3) Lewis’ proposal is noteworthy because it delineates how the massing and heights might possibly be organized in a simplistic way within the existing C3A zoning; that is a useful reference that allows one to better understand the implications of increasing heights and densities and in particular what’s being proposed.

Interestingly, Nigel Baldwin did a huge amount of work to similarly illustrate a 4.5 FSR scheme, if memory serves, for the similarly overly dense Marine Gateway rezoning, I believe his opinion, however was that 3.0 FSR was what that evolving neighbourhood centre needed.

My point is that in the conditional use process you start by demonstrating why the added 2.0 FSR should be granted, and that in special sites, such as this one an even more rigorous process should be applied to justify adding density above 3.0.

@Lee Chapelle #113

Sorry, I didn’t know how to italisize ‘should”. My emphasis was lost, I suppose.

I’m not saying that building a long facade of 17+ stories, cheek by jowl along a busy main street is the right course of action. More congestion on top of more congestion not the idea.

Îlot ouvert

Or open block, that is what Lewis has drawn.
To be honest it is a good concept, more or less theorized by Christian de Portzamparc.

This concept, is the guiding one for the construction of a new district in Paris (Massena),

Of course, a bit more density is desirable, so it looks more like on this model of the Massena district.

Also, one will note that in he Lewis drawing, there is no semi/private space for the new building…
(That is typical the design of the neighborhood, which want to keep public access to someone else property) and that is also the challenge of the open block concept, how to be open but also respect the desire of the inhabitant for ownership feeling / semi-private space (basically this space, where you can let the the kid run with peace of mind)?

WOW this is a bun fight of epic proportions.I have no skin in this game but I can say now I’m totally confused.Just to throw another monkeywrench into the mix maybe we could bring in a sun tax like they have in Seoul.Have at her folks.

@Richard 104
I’m surprised you are not more concerned about all the increased vehicle traffic that will occur on the 10th Ave. bike route with the Rize proposal?

Also, one will note that in he Lewis drawing, there is no semi/private space for the new building…

Voony 118

Well, now there is a comment that merits a reply. An attempt at humour first: the amount of semi/private space should be taken to be commensurate with the fee collected for the work.

There would be front door yards on the Watson Row Houses, and roof terraces on the apartments on the building fronting Broadway. The Flat Iron Building is an apartment block. The options are much more constrained in this building type.

However, Voony raises the interesting issue of whether or not the row houses might front the square or ‘urban room’ with private rear yards?

Why not? There may be a sense in which a careful design might create a balance between a private yard with a gate and an 8-foot wall fronting a square. But, allowing the greenery of the yard to somehow be part of the public space.

I can recall one such garden wall in Venice. The mere suggestion of a leafy top growing over the wall was enough to give that segment of a short street its own distinct character.

@87:

“And it’s disappointment in the staleness of this argument – towers are evil – even though
they are actually the only form of affordable housing in this city.”

The only form of affordable housing? I have never seen a tower unit I could afford, especially not a brand new one with 10-foot ceilings and luxury furnishings. This is not affordable housing, and is far out of reach of most existing Mount Pleasant residents. Not that we expect this to be social housing, either, but in line with the redevelopments that have been taking place.

But there are many better plans for affordable housing in the city than that. Yes, basement suites are one of them, as would be zoning that allows owners to split up more existing single family houses into apartments across more of the city.

And you asked for an example of tower-based condos that opponents of this project would support? How about basically any reasonable, well-designed downtown, or in Metrotown, or in Brentwood, or in Surrey or downtown Richmond. Towers are for regional town centres, not Mount Pleasant, not Commercial Drive, not Hastings, not the Heights in Burnaby, not in neighbourhoods – certainly not without neighbourhood support.

I’m willing to see a compromise that keep this tower a tower, but for that the developer needs to cut the BS and build to suit the community. That means lowering the height, not just the number of floors, which should help make the units less “luxury market” style; it means eliminating the big box commercial space and truck bays, so they don’t flood the busiest bike route in the city with semi-trucks; it ought to mean lowering the FSR a tad more; etc.

This is not a discussion about whether TOD is a good thing; it’s about how we should do TOD, and whether this particular plan for TOD is the best for the community.

>SS @ #106

“I think that density right now is really an excuse to build more units from which to collect much needed property tax revenues. Nothing more, nothing less.” Well, phew, It sure took a lot of time and pain to get there didn’t it?

All this kafuffle about driving over sized semis thru the eye of a needle or nice little cottages to replace man-size buildings or name calling of we-know-better-than-the-planners because we wash our own sox and worst of all the self serving posturing, (Bill Mc has gone way down IMO), and all because no one read the MPCP closely preferring to interpret their own wishful thinqing into it.

Now council has to worm its way out while the chattering classes are making hard work for its communications/promo dept. salivating over a twisted cliché on the other side of town.

Oh, and children, no towers out side downtown just forget Kerrisdale, Oakridge, Kits Slopes et al.

Now what response will I get from the petulant anal retentive, “don’t answer” distaff or childish name calling or more unrealistic baloney from the self-anointed guru of the group?

I’m waiting with interest or should I end with, “we live in Vancouver and . . . ” Ummmm, oh well ¡no es importante!

Either way, as the sage said, the planning process is broke!

Wot a spectacle!

@87:

“And it’s disappointment in the staleness of this argument – towers are evil – even though
they are actually the only form of affordable housing in this city.”

Tessa caught a live one. Oscar Newman argued the opposite case in his epoch making “Defensible Space” (free download here http://www.defensiblespace.com/book.htm).

Newman sees towers working best in the luxury market with a concierge, a doorman, a chauffeur to bring around the motor.

The sad part is that this is an argument that was had in the 1950s as I argue in the “Density Fallacy” presentation (Next showing: May 7th, Learning Resources Centr, Britannia Community Centre, 7 p.m.). We have known for over 60 years that towers destroy neighbourhood fabric and violate the character of human scale neighbourhoods.

There are a very few places, where because of the geographical setting, hyper-tower density can work. However, we have here in our city, with the Raymur and MacClean social housing projects, examples where social housing in towers does not work.

The infamous example is Cabrini Green in Chicago, where an entire building could be controlled and terrorized by one gang member sitting in the hallway by the main entrance.

There are also problems of scale with infestations, management and with upkeep. Studies out of the U.S. suggest that housing with supports is most effective with groups of 8 people (roughly what we can accommodate in an urban house).

Yet, we have an 8 storey tower—down from 12 I am told—of social housing going up at Fraser & Broadway. The Mount Pleasant Community Plan shows the corner with a 16+ tower on the other side, and the suggestion to close the half block of Fraser to make a square.

Now, MB is going to accuse me of piling on the planners again. That’s not my intention, the responsibility is with the higher ups. With the one that failed to take into account that if you build a public open space jammed between two towers, even towers lower than 20 stories—to quote the Walker Brothers from 1966—“The Sun Ain’t Gonna Shine Anymore.”

Luxury towers for luxury condos. And this Rize, the worst part about it form the point of a walkable neighbourhood is the full-block podium that rises almost the full 70 feet to the top of the Lee Building (but the photography lies about that) and there is no way to cut through the block.

Roger@32 – Showing respect isn’t pandering, Roger. you should try it sometime and see what kind of response you get. You might be delightfully surprised.

FWIW, I have tried in recent postings to be more respectful toward you and your comments, but I now wonder why I’ve bothered.

Back to the topic at hand, there is really no more to be said. Positions have been staked out. Council will do what Council will do. It is not an easy job and I don’t envy them. I just hope they make a decision that is best for the longterm future of the city, whatever that is.

Lewis 133

You seem to be overextending yourself again, this time into sociology.

Yes, they demolished blocks of viable detached housing to create McLean Park, a crime that would not come without major controversy and huge protest today. And Strathcona was beset by many other strikes, not the least another wholesale clearing of Hogan’s Alley (where Jimi Hendrix’s granmother lived).

But despite these setbacks, Strathcona today remains one of the most diverse and culturally rich neighbourhoods in Vancouver with a very large stock of heritage homes.

I lived in Strathcona for two years, and I walked through McLean Park every day, often late at night, and it was not the blighted, gang-infested community you are implying. One tower was filled with seniors who required subsidized housing. The place was quite well managed.

Your message is often filled with misguided preconceptions, towers = blight / gangs, SkyTrain = blight, good urbanism = sound social conditions. The latter one is especially arrogant, for I have seen the finest Victorian homes on the shadiest medium-density streets in the nicest neighbourhoods (with walkable amenities and surface transit) filled with crack addicts, disrupting everything within three blocks.

I have also known people in the ugliest 11-storey West End tower who lived in harmony with the other residents for over a decade because the management cared. There was far more disharmony in a self-managed housing co-op we lived in at the time.

Housing management can supersede urbanism.

You cited ‘The Pedestrian Pocket Book’ as relevant to this discussion as well. The highly theoretical exercise decribed in the book (it’s really a collection of essays by various authors, not the least being Peter Calthorpe) was meant to offer a 1988 alternative to exurban development and used the largely rural Seattle suburb of Auburn as a case study.

I do not find their theories on urban form particularly relevant to inner city sites like Rize. It’s apples and oranges. But what I did find very relevant was their research into demographics where they discovered that the vast majority of American people were single, follwed by single parents, and I believe the demographics were similar in Canada. Only about a quarter were the I Love Lucy suburban family. And those kids of the 80s are now having kids, and a large number of them prefer the urban experience.

It is singles of all ages that require housing, much of it accessible, and housing in Vancouver is expensive. Therein lies the real challenge, if you want to take a sociological tack in your theories. How do you provide affordable housing for singles in Mount Pleasant?

A little more openminded perspective, less hubris and less judgement of planners, who are often only caught in the middle, would only reinforce the better parts of your otherwise sound lectures.

Why can’t developers and architects put forward a choice of 3 designs.. different designs.. and let the public vote on which they like the best.. especially in areas like this which are so instrumental in determining the future. We did this with the Vancouver Public Library (Main Branch) and i think it was a very clever way to bring the public into the fold and get them to buy-into the idea of new developments.

I live in the area.. two blocks away from this site… I’m all for redeveloping the neighbourhood.. most of the buildings are CRAP afterall.. falling apart..looking tired and miserable.. but I’m certainly NOT for having a 19-storey tower shoved up my arse.. like the developer or some others who are posting here.

I think local area residents should hold the cards here. I dont have time for people who dont live in the area.. telling me i’m a NIMBY’er and that I should be forced to live with a 19-storey tower in my backyard. Frankly.. NIMBY’s know what the story is.. some armchair dude(ette) in some other part of the city does not (not likely anyway). they dont know what the impact will be on the community.
Similarly though, I dont have time for the complete opposite.. those that want no development.. that think this should be a park or to daylight some long-forgotten stream.. or those that think it should be solely social housing…
Mount Pleasant has a history as Vancouver’s oldest neighbourhood. Why can’t, like a previous commenter stated, this development look like the Dominion Tower or the Sun Building downtown? Certainly a modern tower can have some classy design? I’ll bet if it was architecturally elegant befitting of its location.. that a similarly tall building would be more acceptable? Had we been given 3 options to choose from… would there not have been better buy-in from local residents?

Main/Broadway/Kingsway needs to be redeveloped.. no question. Get rid of the crap.. bring in some new stuff ( please spare us the standard monotony of another Tim Hortons, another FlightCentre.. or another MoneyMart or Subway. YUCK!).. but please make things look like they’ve been here all along.. not some middle-finger sticking up from the hand that feeds it.

The decision now in, we have fresh evidence that CACs are the new Crack Cocaine that is distorting our ability to plan our city.

Throw everything else out the window. It’s about the money, stupid!

Higgins #140
I hope your farm wasn’t your retirement plan…truth be told I voted for a balanced slate of Councillors that I felt had demonstrated good work for the voters on a variety of issues…my slate would have given no ‘party’ a majority…but who I voted for isn’t really the issue is it?

@ Lewis 141:

It’s about the money, stupid!

No it’s not.

Your perception on this is groundlessly limited and ignores all cities (Vancouver isn’t the only one) who have Communty Amenity Bonuses, or Density Bonuses — whatever the handle — and what is actually built with them for their citizens without using tax dollars, or the employment created by keeping construction workers on sites a bit longer to build the extra floors / units.

You see only money without knowing its worth.

Moreover, you seem to be implying that Council is on the take. They have many flaws, and in my view they have two years and nine months to prove they actually do care about neighbourhoods, or they’ll face the consequences. But CAC’s are “crack cocaine”? C’mon. That’s a dumb, knee-jerk response, Lewis.

You seem frustrated because you just can’t figure out why most people just don’t see the world through your lens.

I don’t support Rize as proposed either, and I will be re-evaluating my vote for the Vision councillors I chose amongst other candidates last time during the next election (I perfer a mixed slate), but I don’t see the necessity to stoop to purple prose and criminal references.

@ Terry “douche bag” M

(… your words, not mine.)

Perhaps, Terry, you can tell us the total value of the community amenity bonuses (aka “the cocaine money”) and what they will build for the people, and the services they will provide. The info’s there, but you have to be smart enough to know where to look.

I’m not convinced you are.

You seem to be concerned only about political donations. Good for you! I’ll even agree to limits, if they’re ever enacted. In the meantime, I challenge you to name one civic politician that didn’t accept any in the last election, even the ones you supposedly voted for.

My apology, #148 should have been posted on another topic. I will do so there.