Frances Bula header image 2
← →

What should council decide on Rize tower Tuesday? Have your say

April 13th, 2012 · 149 Comments

The Vision council will be making a decision Tuesday, after five nights of public hearings and 130 speakers, what to do about the Rize tower rezoning at Kingsway and Broadway.

It was clear from questions put to staff at the end of the last night of public hearings that councillors and the mayor are trying to figure out what their options are for this project. (Complete details on their rezoning application here.) There were a few comments and questions about whether design issues could be dealt with in more detail at the urban design panel and development permit board.

It seemed to be that there can be much more design work done. But council will have to decide on the height and density. I’m not clear myself on whether the issues of a big-box store, the questions about truck traffic on the 10th Avenue bike route next to the building, the suggestions that artist space should be put back in the building, and other things like that are finalized in a council vote on a rezoning.

I’m sure councillors have been thrashing this over extensively and been getting lots of opinions, because this is a project that many see as one that will tell developers and residents how the city plans to handle the difficult job of increasing density throughout the city while respecting resident requests to have it done in a way that meshes with their neighbourhoods.

From all the discussion I’ve heard here and elsewhere, it’s not going to bode well for the future if councillors opt for an answer based on some of the simplistic arguments made.

Voting full approval because “if we don’t, it will kill density and affordability in the city” won’t fly, because that is a message to residents that developers can put in whatever they want anywhere, as long as they’re claiming that they’re creating density near transit.

And killing it won’t fly.

For one, not all opponents to this particular project are opposed to development. There’s one group that is. The people in that group think any development other than social housing leads to gentrification, higher rents for low-income residents and eventual displacement.

But many, many other opponents say they welcome development (some mentioned they live in new projects in the area) but that they want to see new development that meshes with the neighbourhood, not a replica of Yaletown-style towers.

But let’s have an airing here of what council’s options might be besides the two obvious and unsatisfactory ones are: Yes, without conditions for the project. Or No, turn it down.

I’m especially wondering if the people on this blog who are knowledgeable about city processes could weigh in to say what council might be able to do besides an outright rejection or acceptance. I’m not clear myself on what those might be.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • ThinkOutsideABox

    I have to agree with Everyman. And also with Roger from this post on the planetizen link just above on which he posted a comment as ‘Urbanismo’ on Tue, 04/27/2010 – 10:00:

    It is now time to get those smooth little men in expensive suits out of our neighbourhoods.

    Yup!

    Thanks Lewis, and RAMP. That was a great demonstration. Looking forward to seeing how the city addresses this now.

  • Roger Kemble

    Thanqu ThinkingOutsideAbox @ #47 I was hoping someone would fall for the bait: you obliged. Thanqu!

    My 2010 riposte to Duany was directed to his failure to strew his ticky-tacky boxes all over The Spetifore property. Spetifore has been under threat as long as I rememeber. It is ALR and it is still imminently under threat today.

    Rize is totally different. I hope you can see that.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Here’s the full video for the truck-turning demonstration:

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Getting back to Frances’s original question, we drew a diagram:

    http://wp.me/p1yj4U-7H

  • Lee Chapelle

    @Roger Kemble 46 “I am sure the architect and developer stay up all night, every night, conspiring to bamboozle, especially, you with their chicanery. Seemingly they are doing a good job too!”

    I don’t think so Roger, I think they do it during working hours and I doubt if they lose any sleep over it. It’s called “marketing”. I also disagree that they do a good job, because it is quite transparent even to a layperson such as myself. The following article was featured in the March 26 edition of the Vancouver Courier submitted by Rize VP Chris Vollan http://www.vancourier.com/news/Letter+week/6371361/story.html
    Open that link in a separate browser window and select the PHOTOS tab so you can better refer to their “artist’s rendering” while you read what I have to say about it. This demonstrates clearly how deceptive Rize has been about the scale and impact of this proposed project.
    The building immediately to the right of the Rize in the rendering is a four storey (48 ft) building called The Hub. The top of the adjacent Rize podium wall along Broadway appears in this image to be just slightly higher. In fact that podium wall is 118 feet tall, including two levels of commercial and five levels of residential. It ought to appear two and one half times the height of The Hub, not just slightly higher.
    Now notice how the top of the Rize tower is even with the horizon, with the top of The Stella building just peeking above it from behind. The Stella building is 126.6 ft at the top of the parapet wall, the Rize Tower is 215 ft. That is the equivalent of nine stories taller than the Stella, not six as they claim. A true rendering as has been done by RAMP architect Steven Bohus accurately shows the top of the tower well above the skyline
    Through visual trickery the Rize project is being misrepresented to appear as far less imposing than it actually will be. This is deceptive and clearly no accident. It is*unethical* to do this.
    Mr Vollan also mentions in his letter that the project was the result of an extensive consultation process. What he fails to mention is that high-rises were rejected as an option by a wide margin of citizens polled at every step along the way, and that a building of this magnitude was never mentioned until the last community meeting of a two year planning process when in fact the City and Rize had been discussing the project in secret for years. Vague language to ostensibly permit such a tower was unilaterally inserted into the Plan by City staff; however in the subsequent Public Hearing (which resumes April 4 at 6:00 PM) many speakers have successfully dispelled the notion that The Mount Pleasant Plan supports a large high-rise in this location.
    He also references the 1987 Community Plan, but the 1987 Plan indicated that this site was suitable for office space, not residential. http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/guidelines/C026.pdf Re Office space, see page 85 (or page 93 on the bar), 3.1.1, and also recommends undertaking a city-wide study to examine the problems with developing residential on major streets.
    It is my view and that of the majority of residents of Mount Pleasant, including architects and urban planners who have criticized this application, that this proposal is wrong for this site and the whole process has been a disaster. City Council needs to do a reset and ask for something that truly captures the imagination of the people of Mount Pleasant and will restore confidence in the public consultation process.

  • Michelle S of Mt Pleasant

    “Okay, so what does this prove?

    RAMPERS have a good Samaritan at NSDS or deep enough pockets to hire the largest semi in the lower mainland.

    Points made: the semi made it! Good driver!

    Points to remember: urban deliveries are not made by inappropriately sized vehicles. Watson Street will be up graded.

    Like an infant unwilling to give up its security blanket so goes RAMPERS the very small, vocal MP minority.

    Absurd!” @ Roger Kemble

    Wow Roger, first you have to attack Lewis in a very unproffessional and personal manner and now RAMP, a group of concerned citizens that are doing the job of getting the facts right, which ideally is the job City Hall Planning now isn’t it?

    You take being petty and small minded to a whole other level.

    Just glad to see that like myself, others dismiss you and see you in the same light. Too bad though, because on occassion you do offer intelligent insight, just a pity it is detracted by your ignorance.

    Can’t wait to see how you proceed in attacking my comment…..

  • Lee Chapelle

    @54Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Getting back to Frances’s original question, we drew a diagram:
    http://wp.me/p1yj4U-7H

    Lewis, what a fabulous design! I absoultely LOVE it!! It creates a people-friendly space that enhances the neighbourhood. Truly an”iconic building”.

  • Diderottoo

    Council should amend the condition regarding the Community Amenity Contribution to require the full value of $6.25 million to be re-invested back on the site in the form of turn-key housing units to be conveyed to the City. The value of these units should be calculated on the construction cost alone, i.e., no land cost to be included. That would be consistent with existing policy and practice and not unique to this site. The reason for an on-site amenity, contrary to what is stated in one of the staff memos (is Penny’s nose getting any longer?), is that the public gets more for the CAC dollar because land cost is not included/required. If an off-site amenity is sought, as proposed here, then the City has to purchase/acquire land, lessening or reducing the delivered amenity. Existing CAC policy does not allow cash to go to “operating” costs as is suggeted in the amended CAC condition, unless those operating costs are directly associated with an on-site amenity. The sublety here is that as now worded, the cash CAC could go to subsidizing Science World or one of the many troubled theatres, claiming that Mt. Pleasant residents go to Science World or to said theater, etc.

    If Council wants to further stipulate that some units delivered as the CAC, be earmarked for low -income households, which could include artists in need, then so be it.

    I personally think the tower is poorly shaped/configured and results in units that have awkward, even unlivable, floor plans (see the drawings for floors 6-18 at the link Frances provides). But there are design development conditions to address those issues in the existing conditions (e.g., the horizontal angle of daylight condition) or through the normal permitting processes.

    However, the 9 storey podium is a clumsy, ill-thought out proposal for this location, and if built as drawn, will feel brutal to pedestrians on Watson and Broadway. I have little hope that Council will have the guts to make any changes or provide any direction there.

    And by the way Roger, the “Spetifore” lands are not in the ALR. The land is zoned for agricultural use by Delta, but it is not in the ALR. And it has been owned by Sean Hodgines for close to 2 decades.

  • Lee Chapelle

    @Roger Kemble “Read the community plan. You are not being reasonable. You are being meddlesome!”

    When did a lively debate and passionate community involvement turn into “meddling”? And just what are YOU doing? Whose interests do YOU represent? And incidentally I took part in the creation of the community plan and at no time during that process did one single citizen member of that group give their consent to such a monstrosity as the Rize has on the table. All those discussions were going on in secret back room negotiations between City planners and the Rize. Just ask them, they won’t deny it.

  • Lee Chapelle

    @Roger Kemble “Like an infant unwilling to give up its security blanket so goes RAMPERS the very small, vocal MP minority”

    You’re making the ad hominem fallacy into an art form Roger, and making an incorrect statement in the process. According to every survey done by the City and by Rize at Open Houses, RAMP’s opposition to this development represents the MAJORITY view by a wide margin, it’s your view that is the minority one. Personally however I see no inherent flaw in taking a minority view on an issue.

  • Lee Chapelle

    @Roger Kemble “Like an infant unwilling to give up its security blanket so goes RAMPERS the very small, vocal MP minority”

    You’re making the ad hominem fallacy into an art form Roger, and making an incorrect statement in the process. According to every survey done by the City and by Rize at Open Houses, RAMP’s opposition to this development represents the MAJORITY view by a wide margin, it’s your view that is the minority one. Personally however I see no inherent flaw in taking a minority view on an issue.

  • Bill McCreery

    The above discussion is a great summary of where this controversial rezoning has gone in the last 3 years! There are also some constructive suggestions Council would be wise to heed. Frances is right, an either or solution would not be wise.

    It’s been suggested that the project be referred back for a redesign to produce something closer to what’s called for in the Community Plan. If this happens it would be necessary to spell out what the limitations are for the new design, such as density, height, relation to the street, traffic conflicts, etc. That might be difficult to do for Tuesday, and therefore, a followup report back to Council would be necessary.

    Alternatively, they could follow some of the suggestions above and my own of 31 March in a previous post. For reference and convenience I copy the essence of them here:

    “2) Cllr. Meggs is asking questions of speakers at the RIZE hearings that indicate VV might be looking for some kind of way out as I mentioned above.
    There is nothing they can do at this point to change this proposal to satisfy the community unless they went back to square one and told the developer to redesign to the existing C-3A 3.0 FSR and earn the 2.0 FSR from the outright 1.0 like they’re supposed to in the conditional use zoning system. That is unlikely to happen given 1) above.

    [I was commenting on the conflict of interest a Council has when it accepts large donations from developers, unions and the like]

    “However, perhaps there are improvements they might be able to make at this late date, which, based on comments I’ve heard, at least might make the proposal somewhat more acceptable to the community. Some of these might be:

    “A] reduce the height from 19 storeys to 17. 15 would be even better, …;

    That will bring the density closer to 5.0 FSR, still too high, but an improvement in the relationship with the scale of the historic Mount Pleasant quarter.

    “B] reduce the floor to floor heights from the now proposed 25′ for the two retail floors to 18′ or 20′ and the residential from the 10′ per floor (high end) to a more typical 8′-6″;

    “This will result in a real reduction from the originally proposed 27 storeys to 19 and now 17, not the make believe proposal now being considered that in fact actually only reduces the height by 2 1/2 storeys. It will also make the purchasers of the condo units more in line with the socio-economic demographic of Mt. Pleasant.

    “In addition to reducing the tower height this will, even more importantly, reduce the height and the imposing bulk of the base, which at the moment is a very poor neighbour in this historic quarter.

    “C] instead of some vague pronouncement about the CAC money going to the arts, specify that the CAC’s will be used to purchase a building in the neighbourhood that can be used for artists studios and set aside some of those moneys for the completion of the Mt. Pleasant community pool that was promised 3 or 4 years back;

    “The developer will not be at all happy, but don’t be surprised if they will live with it. Hopefully this Council can see from their experiences in Norquay, Mt. Pleasant, Marine and Cambie and Shannon Mews that imposing downtown scaled projects and building types is not what should be done in neighbourhoods. There are better solutions and the City needs to take the leadership role it’s supposed to have to create healthy, sustainable, walkable and bike-able neighbourhoods.”

    The above should be refined based on the comments of others.

    1) The big box retail space should be reduced to one level and be subdivided into neighbourhood focused tenants. This, together with a reduction in the floor to floor height will bring the way to bulky and high ‘base’ to a more acceptable height.

    2) The FSR does need to come below 5.o. If 4 floors are taken off the then 15 storey tower and one storey of the base retail is removed that will bring the FSR to about 4.5. If the developer paid $11M for the site the land cost is $207/sf, @ 3.0 FSR = $69/sf buildable; @ 4.5 = $46; 5.5 = $38 = Surrey land costs. There is a whole lot of room @ $46/sf buildable for the developer to make a good profit (50% higher than the land is zoned for to start with), the City to capture reasonable CAC’s, and the buyers to to get an affordable product.

    But, coming back to Frances’:

    “… this is a project that many see as one that will tell developers and residents how the city plans to handle the difficult job of increasing density throughout the city while respecting resident requests to have it done in a way that meshes with their neighbourhoods”.”

    There’s a whole lot more on the line here than “… how the City …handles density [in] neighbourhoods”. How council handles this spot rezoning will also make clear who their master is. Is it Vancouver citizens or is it developers who have provided Vision Vancouver with very generous donations?

  • George

    @ Bill McCreery #60…

    well said.

  • Trish French

    Just a technical answer to Frances’ question about what Council can do at this point. based on my past experience with major rezonings.

    Legally Council can approve or refuse the rezoning application as it stands; or they can approve it with any revisions they choose to impose. For example, they could reduce the height and density, place limits on the uses or size of retail units etc.

    Then a revised scheme that meets the revised parameters would be prepared by the applicant, for Development Permit Application. There could be public consultation on the revised scheme before any decision on the DPA. In CD-1 rezonings like this, not only does the Development Permit Board need to approve the eventual form of development, but so does Council, before the zoning is finally legally “enacted”.

    In practical terms, Council modifications at the time of a rezoning decision are usually modest, i.e. they are modifications to the proposal under consideration, not radical change to it.

    What is often happening between the end of the public delegations and Council’s debate and decision is that Council is discussing with staff what the options for modification are. Staff might or might not discuss with the applicant how open they are to changes. (Council is not supposed to be talking to the applicant at this point in the process.) If Council (i.e. the majority, in caucus discussions) wants changes, they (with or without staff help) will draft wording to revise the proposed zoning bylaw. This is presented in the form of a motion at the Council, during their debate on the rezoning.

  • Glissando Remmy

    Thought of The Evening

    “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings…”

    Two months since my opinion on this Rize boo-boo… still going strong.
    Here’s a copy/ paste, thank god for that, from Fabula’s
    (The dilemma of the tower outside the downtown: RIZE at Kingsway/Broadway
    February 26th, 2012 · 105 Comments)
    …………………………………………………………………

    Thought of The Day

    “I’m looking forward to tonight’s City Hall ‘Stone Soup’. George will bring the potatoes, Lewis will bring the onions, Randy and Terry the carrots and the parsnips, Michael will bring the beans, Frances will bring the big spoon, me… I will bring the salt.”

    Here’s the thing.
    I know that you good people, are going for a potluck tonight, but… the City ordnance have already ordered tuna, egg, ham sandwiches & croissants, tea, coffee and juices for the Council members, to be served in the intimacy of their back room.
    You can always watch how they eat if you may, though.

    “New York, London, Paris Munich everybody talk about Pop Musik, talk about… shoobee doobee doo aaa…”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HaAOCGb3bw

    Forget a moment about the Rat Race. The whole process is up side down, inside out.
    The process is rigged.

    There is no Master Plan.
    There is no Vision.
    There is no Leadership.

    Most of it, was let go, retired or fired. Only the kosher pickles stayed.

    Wouldn’t have been better if the whole process started with the end? Take the council’s naivete on ‘white’, with mayo provided by the City Planners, sprinkle neighborhood input and spices and then… go for a good sandwich developer, to put it all together for you!?
    As it stands right now, the sandwich developer serves you whatever they want you to have on… ‘white’!

    It’s going to be another long night. Maybe you’ll get some laughs, maybe you’ll get some boos, what you will not get… is your precious hours back!
    As for the European comparison… we went through this before, don’t get me started again.
    Here, you eat chicken; over there, they eat frog legs; they taste like chicken, but that’s all there is. Ok?
    …………………………………………………………………
    …and no, if you were wondering, I wouldn’t change a word, as…

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

    PS.
    As an afterthought, the developer should have pulled a “starchitect” for this project, perhaps someone like BIG.DK as they were in town recently for a massage. They could have come up with a… see-through, self-raising, living building or any other phantasmagorical vision, in line with their line of thinking. Just saying 🙂 … for the entertainment value.
    Can’t wait for Tuesday. 🙂

  • tf

    I’m watching this closely because further north on Main, we’re looking at a rezoning application for 619 Main, at Keefer, in the heart of Chinatown. The application is for 17 stories and a FSR of 7.88!!!
    The tallest buildings around the neighbourhood are 9 stories and surrounding the lot is 3 stories.
    As with Rize, the proposed development is completely out-of-scale and character of the neighbourhood.
    I hope some of you can support the DTES when City Council hears this in the near future.
    Thanks Frances!

  • Don

    Why are we not talking about deception?

    Distorted computer renderings and models?

    Don’t we care? have we given up?

    If for no other reason than sleaziness, this project should be rejected.

  • GNR

    @ Lewis #54 The diagram is perfect. It goes along with the MP Community Plan. “Any additional height and density would be contingent on further urban design analysis, including shadowing, view impacts, ‘look and feel’ of the area, ‘permeability’ of the site (the ability of people to see and walk through the site),….. the height/bulk in relation to the character of adjacent streets” page 10

    A six storey building surrounded by shorter buildings and at 3.0 FSR with a permeable site. It goes along with the community’s ideas for the site, too. BRILLIANT, well thought out.

  • Roger Kemble

    What we are seeing here is a very tacky, old decrepit, part of town, Mount Pleasant, being rationalized by sentimentalists afraid of inevitable change.

    MP ceased to be of historic significance long ago? It is the confluence of traffic madness.

    And what do we get from the neighbours:

    1. A six story proposal gratuitously offered to replace a twenty-six story proposal in defiance of economic reality: that ain’t gonna fly!

    No GR @ #66 The diagram is not perfect. It is totally unrealistic, and knowing the author, as I predicted.

    2. Then our newspaper of record gives us a dance macabre, recorded on video, trying to out do Leni Riefenstahl. Demonstrating why the largest semi in the lower mainland cannot negotiate the smallest street in the lower mainland, yet inconveniently demonstrating how it can!

    3. An earnest commentator, papoose held close to breast, telling us why a helpful police presence disturbs the neighbours as the said largest semi in the lower mainland emerges from the other end of the smallest street in the lower mainland: triumphantly!

    Sorely lacking in this mélange of pusillanimous obfuscation is vision, courage and a purpose. Where is Mount Pleasant as a Hilltown an urban village?

    PS. What happened to the mayor’s task force and round table on housing affordability?

  • GNR

    @ Frank Ducote #30
    “choices decision makers have: approve/reject or modify, I’m guessing the third choice will be found most appealing.”

    Why will it be more appealing?

  • GNR

    @ Roger Kemble #67
    I have been listening to you drivel on for days. I’ve posted information for you to read so that you could better understand what we in Mount Pleasant have been going through with the creating of our MP Community Plan and with this development. It seems by your continued arrogant, self-righteous, uninformed comments you have not found it necessary to absorb this knowledge. It seems to me that you do not live in Mount Pleasant and have never walked our streets or the area to be developed.
    Sir I mean this in the kindest and most respectful manner, you should seek professional mental health assistance.
    Know your audience. You appear to have no idea of the type of people who live in our community. They are people who have volunteered hundreds of hours of their time, while ill, while working full time jobs, while raising children and going to school, all in the effort to create a community that fits all, new and long term residents.
    I don’t know if you know anyone whose families were the first European settlers of Canada. But if you do you’ll know the hearts of these people were open and giving and knew sometimes you have to give a hand out to someone who needs it, just now and just for a while. That’s the kind of folks you find in Mount Pleasant. And so we, as a community, said in the community planning process, we’ll do our share to help create more density and more height in Mount Pleasant because we know the City is growing and we what to help. However we didn’t say we’d give and give and give. We didn’t say we’ll give you the farm house and leave ourselves out in the barn. What we did was compromised in order to help the City at large. And by doing that we showed our culture of respect for each other. The development community gets some of the goodness of getting more profit from a taller, denser building then 30 feet and 1.0 FSR allowed and instead they get a 70 foot tower surrounded by shorter building and 3.0 FRS and the residents get some of the goodness by living in a human scale area with sunshine on the streets and a nice amenity for the whole community. WIN WIN
    However, while we thought we were working in good faith with the City, during our community planning meetings which started in 2008, the City started parallel secret (community not informed or invited) meetings in 2008 with the RIZE team to develop a 26 foot tower in the middle of our community.
    Throughout our community meetings we discussed height of 4 to 6 feet for the ‘hilltown’ area. About the second from the last meeting a staff member said I don’t think Council will go for that. Then the last community meeting the City brought in a model provided by the Rize team with some towers on it. No height or density was mentioned, more secrets.
    The Community had less than 10 minutes discussion on this in a two year planning process. Not a very nice way to treat a community is it.
    Given what you now know of our community, I would greatly appreciate that you treat the people of our community with respect.
    Is there something you need in order to understand about the situation here? I will do my very best to get it for you.

  • GNR

    @ GRN # 69 “Throughout our community meetings we discussed height of 4 to 6 feet for the ‘hilltown’ area”. SHOULD READ: 4 to 6 STOREYS

  • Jon Petrie

    Re 65: > … If for no other reason than sleaziness, this project should be rejected.>If a picture is worth a thousand words, a misleading picture is as defective/effective as a thousand words of biased and false statements.
    The Rize proposed development is significantly larger than is shown in the Rize provided image that ‘graced’ the “setting the record straight’ letter of the week in the Courier March 28th.
    I request that you republish that Rize provided image alongside the City`s computer representation of the proposed Rize development. The City`s rendering can be seen alongside the Rize rendering on the last page of the City’s report on that Rize rendering — http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120227/documents/phea6memoFeb20.pdf <>… I am far behind on email and tasks… Finding a print version of the image you are talking about is not necessarily easy, but we’ll see what we can do. We generally don’t make judgments about “grossly inaccurate” images, since I wouldn’t trust any architectural rendering whatsoever, no matter what the source. But you and Jon make a fair point …<<

    CTV on its 11 pm news, April 13th in a segment focusing on the truck event (a great idea) showed Rize's deliberately distorted image of the building and no other — presumably that image was provided by Rize who continue to circulate a distorted image because they have no expectation of being penalized for distortion.

    A few people within Ramp are talking about a court case if Council passes the project. There are precedents for throwing out a decision if it can be shown that a council (and public opinion) have been swayed by misleading evidence and false statements. I will happily put up some seed money for such a court case.

    And by the way, the Courier did publish a short letter from TransLink the other day disclaiming support for the Rize project — Rize had claimed such support in the March 28th letter of the week published in the Courier. As far as I know this is the only time that a public body has bothered to correct a Rize misrepresentation without being pushed by someone from Ramp.

  • Jon Petrie

    MINE above, 65, got messed up after I pressed submit button:

    Trying again after removing the arrow symbols:

    Re 65: ” … If for no other reason than sleaziness, this project should be rejected.”

    Rewording the idea, which I support:
    ‘If self serving lying isn’t drawn attention to and punished that self serving lying will continue, be rewarded, and encouraged in others.’

    Not only does Council and City Planning appear to be giving Rize a pass on its distortions and false statements but also the Vancouver journalism community.

    I emailed Barry Link (editor Courier) April 3:
    “If a picture is worth a thousand words, a misleading picture is as defective/effective as a thousand words of biased and false statements.
    The Rize proposed development is significantly larger than is shown in the Rize provided image that ‘graced’ the “setting the record straight’ letter of the week in the Courier March 28th.
    I request that you republish that Rize provided image alongside the City`s computer representation of the proposed Rize development. The City`s rendering can be seen alongside the Rize rendering on the last page of the City’s report on that Rize rendering ….”

    Barry Link did not reply but did write to someone else April 13 “… I am far behind on email and tasks… Finding a print version of the image you are talking about is not necessarily easy, but we’ll see what we can do. We generally don’t make judgments about “grossly inaccurate” images, since I wouldn’t trust any architectural rendering whatsoever, no matter what the source. But you and Jon make a fair point …”

    CTV on its 11 pm news, April 13th in a segment focusing on the truck event (a great idea) showed Rize’s deliberately distorted image of the building and no other — presumably that image was provided by Rize who continue to circulate a distorted image because they have no expectation of being penalized for distortion.

    A few people within Ramp are talking about a court case if Council passes the project. There are precedents for throwing out a decision if it can be shown that Council (and public opinion) have been swayed by misleading evidence and false statements. I will happily put up seed money for such a court case.

    And by the way, the Courier did publish a short letter from TransLink the other day disclaiming support for the Rize project — Rize had claimed such support in the March 28th letter of the week published in the Courier. As far as I know this is the only time that a public body has bothered to correct a Rize misrepresentation without being pushed by someone from Ramp.

  • Roger Kemble

    GNR @ #69“ It seems to me that you do not live in Mount Pleasant and have never walked our streets or the area to be developed.” Sir I lived very close to your MP, walked your streets grocery shopping for forty years probably before you were born.


    “Sir I mean this in the kindest and most respectful manner, you should seek professional mental health assistance.” So now Sir you resort to “kindness” suggesting I seek help because I disagree with your inchoate misconceptions.

    You area totalitarian. Period! No room for contrary opinions.

    Ummmm, there were two such regimes in recent memory treating their recalcitrant citizens thus: either the gulag or indefinite seclusion. Both came to a sticky end!

    My perception of MP planning is not based on the basement deliberations of a minor cabal spewing their diktats. It is based on real time, real circumstance.

  • Tessa

    I’d like to say to Bill McCreery, I think your proposal is more reasonable than Lewis’s. As much as I believe that’s still a bit too much, it does enough. It’s a compromise. The point of lowering the floor heights in particular are well taken, and I hope beyond hope that will also be included in any changes council makes to the proposal.

    As much as I like Lewis’s design in general, I do agree that this is a special site, that this site can take more density than six storeys. There are plenty of buildings around this site that are taller than six storeys, and kingsway fits that very well.

    A height of 15 storeys, slightly lower than what McCreery is proposing, would be even more welcome, certainly lowering the density a little below 5FSR. Removing a floor of commercial and breaking up the suites (and eliminating the truck loading docks) would complete the changes. It’s not perfect, but it will get us out of this hole the city has put us in.

  • Roger Kemble

    Tessa @ #74

    “It’s a compromise.” Huh, be interesting to see what happens tomorrow night.

    Don’t forget Tessa Rize and their architects have been struggling with this for well over a year. We cannot expect them to throw all that work out just because a few loud mouths can’t sleep

    Relegating recalcitrants to a ward is hardly mature conversation either.

    Surely a reasonable person viewing this ridiculous six-story sketch cannot possibly see it as a viable alternative a twenty-six stories that has already had months of professional attention.

    I am told the city needs a new planning paradigm. I agree and so evidently does Andrés Duany. But a new paradigm does not constitute nice little cottages all in a row with mummy and the kids sitting on the stoop waiting for the milkman.

    Nor will it come from agitated amateurs out-shouting the other point of view.

    Usually a new paradigm comes out of a confluence of many circumstances: the last one was a long time ago.

    The planning office, the developers, the architects and of course the vociferous mob are peripheral to the process. There is an elephant in the room that none dare speak its name!

    Yes, it will, indeed, be interesting to see what comes out of tomorrow night.

  • Tessa

    @Roger: I’m well aware that architects have been struggling with this for over a year. They are struggling because they are trying to answer to profit, not to the community. Their idea of lowering the height of a building by seven stories actually only lowers the height by 2.5 stories. It’s a facade. And yes, we can expect them to throw out that work if it doesn’t work for the community. It’s not like you could say that if they spent two years designing a nuclear disposal station that we would have to acknowledge it so not to waste the architect’s time. They wasted their own time.

    You do not speak for the community, Roger. The community doesn’t want to transform into Yaletown. We want density, but we want it to be done our way, without displacing our existing residents and without destroying a vibrant, wonderful community.

    Yes, I know that last part is hard for you to understand, as you describe Mount Pleasant as being little more than traffic. But it is. This project, as conceived, would detract from that community, not add to it. A compromise is doable, and McCreery’s comments articulate just that.

  • Roger Kemble

    Tessa @ #76

    “They are struggling because they are trying to answer to profit, not to the community.” Well, yes that is the “elephant in the room that no one dare speak its name”. Fractional reserve banking, compounding interest, debt that forces us all to balance the books and some over balance: i.e. seek too much profit. It’s all about fear!

    But you are not entirely right. Vancouver residents need more affordable housing. I don’t know if Rize will be affordable. Maybe I am naïve hoping the mayor’s task for has had some input on that.

    That MP, at that corner, is just another tacky, noisy intersection, is an opinion shared by others. I wish it were not so.

    If I was a city planner I would work for that vision of (in the MPCP) “Mount Pleasant as a ‘hilltown’ that uniquely straddles the west and east sides of the city of Vancouver . . .”

    I would like to see the figure ground at the Kingsway/Broadway/Main intersection completely revamped allowing for traffic in between pedestrian and cycle priority.

    I would prefer the three towers that were proposed on the original, way back, MP plan (two on Broadway’s extreme limit of the area and one, the tallest, at this intersection) be located at the intersection: three very tall slender graceful towers that people could say, hey I live there proudly.

    I would like to see the area treated as sculpture creatively articulating a figure ground with little connected plazas, “Woonerfs” to control traffic, amenities for shopping and entertainment and, of course, residences, families on the lower floors, and hipsters and the rich as the elevators rise: treated as a work of art rather, not a shouting arena!

    Alas, dream on Roger . . .

  • Chris Keam

    “You do not speak for the community”

    I’ve lived in Mt Pleasant for over a decade. So I guess that makes me part of the community too. And frankly, when I look at that lot, I’m reminded of a saying we have back on Vancouver Island. Log it. Burn it. Pave it. I’m hopeful developments such as this create enough surplus housing stock that places such as where I live (low-rise affordable [for Vancouver] apt building beside a park) don’t end up being demolished or stratified, because there’s sufficient housing stock in that higher price range to exceed demand. Maybe that’s naive, but it seems to me that the sooner Mt. Pleasant has too much housing at its commercial core, the more likely surrounding blocks will retain their single family and low-rise multi-family housing. And let’s be realistic, Main/Broadway/Kingsway ain’t a peaceful glade by any stretch of the imagination. It’s a retail and services hub for the surrounding areas, minutes from the downtown core, and doomed to be densified. If the neighbourhood isn’t (densified) it will be priced out of range for many of us.

  • Bill Lee

    Meanwhile the tiny (by volume or by floor area) are too small for famiies, too small to spend much time in while unemployed and will be flipping constantly. [Anyone checked the directories of recent condo deveopments? How fast is the turnover? Not studied by BTAWorks,
    http://www.btaworks.com/2011/12/10/main-street-the-city-of-vancouvers-million-dollar-line/
    and
    btaworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/btaworks_condo_study_report_final2.pdf

    However city wages are not enough to pay rents in the area, where there are rentals.

    Do Hydro heat maps show 2 or 3 people per room in the neighbourhood?

    Would this the the ideal site for a new City Hall and get the Engineers out of the Fung building and Social Affairs out of DTES offices?

  • Frank Ducote

    I appreciate the levelheaded voices of Bill Mc and Tessa in recent postings. This has been identified as a special site given its location and larger size, and it has the opportunity to create something special, even if in a modified scale. Further, the even larger mall site will likely also establish a new hybrid scale in this same vicinity, and can be the preferred locus of needed community amenities and services. Transit oriented development needs to be encouraged, IMO, and this is one of the very key nodes for such emerging patterns in the entire city, if not region.

    I am opposed to kneejerk alternatives fostered at the 13th hour in order to suit one’s theories, rather than addressing the very real physical, economic and political exigencies that prevail here.

    Last, I hope the extremely talented CoV urban design staff can also be directed to go the next level in detailed urban design planning for this critical node, as suggested by MB in an earlier posting. Clearly there is a need for that here.

  • jolson

    @27

    The sky is public space. It is a kind of Nature Park covering the whole of the City. It contains the sun and the stars, the clouds and the weather, the trees, the birds and the bees. The neighbourhood did not go down to the Council Chamber and propose to privatize the sky, to turn it into little bits for sale to the highest bidder. The sky is public space filled with wonder and awesome power. We need it in our lives.

    When someone proposes to build in this space a social contract is required that goes far beyond a simple rezoning, the number of floors, and FSR calculations. We the public expect inclusivity in this endeavour; we look for hints of inspiration, we hope for a proposal that leaves us speechless rather then lined up with speeches to deliver, we expect architecture that is as awesome as the natural realm it proposes to occupy.

    We also hope that our relationship with the sky will not be lost. We dream that this new building might have a place for us, perhaps a “Sky Park” at the very top. We don’t actually need to go there; we just need to know that we can go there if we want to feel like it.

  • Lee Chapelle

    @Roger “What we are seeing here is a very tacky, old decrepit, part of town, Mount Pleasant, being rationalized by sentimentalists afraid of inevitable change.”

    Why do you find it necessary to build strawmen and demean those with whom you don’t agree? Opponents of this design, and I take it you are one of them, are not standing against change. Change is all around this corner, within blocks, many new projects with added height and density, and they did not raise the ire of the community like this one does. The reasons are too numerous to mention, they’ve all been stated a hundred times, but let’s add this, this is NOT a “Large Site” as the MPCP proclaims (the other two are). A “LS” is 2 or more acres, this is 1.2, far too small and too constricted to accept a massive rezoning. This site is smack in the middle of this “tacky decrepit” area, put something there that spurs a revitalization we can all live with, not a misguided repeat of the disaster at Kingsway and Knight.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Still listening & reading, great posts!

  • Bill McCreery

    Tessa, agreed, Lewis’ proposal reflects what the zoning allows and the community wants and expected based on the Mt. Pleasant Plan. Here’s what I said on his blog:

    “April 16, 2012 at 12:18 am

    “Well done Lewis! It’s refreshing to see real alternatives, especially one that shows the actual already approved density and height. Another clear message from your scheme is that it clearly is a neighbourhood scaled complex that has an appropriate street presence on all sides.”

    And GNR’s @ 66 comments are right on.

    However, given the political realities, is Council going to say let’s start over? Doubtful, but if they wanted to signal a game change, doing so certainly would do that. Please note that I have adjusted the 17 storeys proposition to 15 as well, for two reasons: to reduce the height of the tower and to reduce the FSR to +/-4.5, still a 50% increase over 3.0.

    One of the really major flaws in the Mt. Pleasant Plan is its suggestion that this site could handle ‘some additional height’, and then leaving it there. That’s not good enough. Aside from the legal hole that added height does not include added density, it is irresponsible to leave undefined, open-ended suggestions in such a document. It’s just not done.

    If Council decided after public discussion that this very special site can possibly handle added density, and if the plan had said for this site for instance:

    “Given the strategic importance of this site the Planning Department in consultation with the community and the property owner can explore possibilities for additional densities over the 3.0 maximum allowable FSR as high as [4.0 – +33.3%] or [4.5 – +50%] provided the proposed solution remains a good neighbour, the base and street frontage must respect the height and facade treatment of the surrounding buildings and be no higher than the Lee Building, any retail be of a smaller grained neighbourhood scale, the internal activities for the proposal shall have street presence, shadowing of the contingent streets and buildings must be within acceptable limits, traffic conflicts and congestion must be satisfactorily dealt with, and there must be additional community benefits over and above what is acceptable to achieve the C3A conditional use zoning in proportion to the increase in FSR over the 3.0 maximum allowable.

    Etc.”

    The above needs input from more heads, and also needs to deal with the height issue, but the intent is that if Council wants a particular site to deviate from the approved community plan, there must be a clearly articulated predefined procedure, which includes maximum limits, etc. Then the community is not broadsided, the developer knows what his land is potentially worth and we don’t have to have public hearings that go on for months. In other words, a process that provides certainty to all stakeholders.

    Having said the above, and after seeing the multitude of problems the proposed density of 5+ is creating it is obvious just because a site has a strategic location, that does not necessarily mean it can handle any amount of added density. That is a valuable lesson here, among several others.

  • A Dave

    As per my earlier comment, I think folks are making arguments for high density towers that are based on a fallacy.

    If 5 towers in Chinatown at nearly 3 times the Historic Area building heights only yield a total of 80 extra residents (ave. of 16 per site), then this whole argument about increasing density to preserve single family housing, support rapid transit, keep the area affordable, revitalize the community through “body heat”, etc. falls apart. It is complete BS.

    And again, if outsiders won’t listen to concerned residents about this, then consider the fact that the former DoP admitted this during a public meeting in January 2011. He also told the audience that there was absolutely no proof that building towers in Chinatown would “revitalize” the area, given how few additional residents they would add.

    The City estimated that, by building within the old height limits in the Historic Area, there was capacity for redevelopments to add 5000 residents across the neighbourhood. But the 5 towers would only add 1.6 percent more residents to the mix! A professional like Brent Toderian was not going to BS the crowd and state publicly that this 1.6 percent more residents was a magic bullet, or a tipping point that would suddenly transform the area.

    So please, people, stop repeating this absurd fallacy that we MUST build these high density towers to solve all the woes of the city. It is simply not true.

    And I wonder, what is the build-out capacity with 6-8 storey limits in Mt. Pleasant within a 3 block radius of Kingsway and Broadway? Would this not be considered Transit Orientated Development?

    Before make misleading judgements and ad hominen attacks, people should to get out and walk the Mt. Pleasant neighbourhood. If they did, they would see numerous NEW developments, including land assemblies, within 3 blocks of the Rize site, that were built at heights not exceeding 8 stories. No one is complaining about these high density developments. And guess what? The developers all managed to make their money, too!

    The incremental changes in the MP neighbourhood over the past 10 years have had an enormous impact. No-one can argue that Main Street is not doing incredibly well, with numerous new businesses popping up, to the point that it’s become a very desirable area. 10 years ago it was still pretty sketchy in places. With a number of new buildings just completing around Kingsway and Broadway, why wouldn’t we expect the area to start improving very soon, too?

    Keeping on the same pace of incremental development by adding human-scaled density has been working just fine thank you very much. Why do we need to mess with a good thing that anyone with their eyes open can see has been working just fine?

    Council can believe the fallacies and gross misrepresentations, support a flawed, back-room process, and pocket the easy money. Or they can look at the reality and see that the Rize is simply not a solution, but a detriment, and does not contribute positively to the development of a sustainable urban neighbourhood.

    Do the right thing.

  • tf

    I really appreciated reading the comment from A Dave #85 – sounded realistic. I guess because I agree.
    Thanks!

  • Sean Bickerton

    Fascinating discussion. @ChrisKeam – again we find ourselves in agreement, Chris.

    #16 @MB I’m not really bitter, more disappointed. I believe passionately in transit-based density – the concept that the more people that live within walking distance of transit and services, the more sustainable our city becomes, the lower our GhG footprint.

    That means bulking up density on major arteries and transit nodes in order to preserve the character of existing neighbourhoods that lie within those major arterials.

    My disappointment is with those that claim environmental cred yet continue to oppose the density next to transit that would do most for their avowed cause.

    And my disappointment is with those that claim concern for neighbourhoods but continue to oppose the development on the major boundaries of each neighbourhood that would make it possible to protect that neighbourhood within.

    What we’re left with is the very kind of spot-rezoning – land density anywhere people won’t object – as opposed to where it belongs to match our billions of dollars in investment in transit infrastructure.

    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.

    Those opposing this development oppose all towers everywhere and seem to consider anythign other than million-dollar single family homes evil.

    I have opposed development that didn’t match the transit-based development paradigm I value so highly – particularly spot rezonings under the STIR program – and those like 5b east and west that didn’t comport with the community’s amenity needs.

    If those on the other side of this proposal would just once name a tower proposal they actually do support, their objections to density at the intersection of two major arterials and a major future transit hub would have a great deal more credibility.

    Transit-based density is easy to understand and envision. What’s the alternative?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Well said, Dave. I choose to leave Chinatown for another day, but that does not mean it is by any means forgotten.

    As a public service to the readers, here is the post with the 3.0 FSR scheme that I sketched with valuable input from RAMP:

    http://wp.me/p1yj4U-7H

    Message there is that “input is valuable” and must be treated thus by professionals and bureaucracies.

    Having said that, let me turn to my friend Bill…

    One of the really major flaws in the Mt. Pleasant Plan is its suggestion that this site could handle ‘some additional height’, and then leaving it there. That’s not good enough. Aside from the legal hole that added height does not include added density, it is irresponsible to leave undefined, open-ended suggestions in such a document. It’s just not done.

    Bill McCreery 84

    What I’ve discussed with another architect, and we agreed on this one, is that the plan appears to be written so as to be deliberately ambiguous. Supposedly, to leave some wiggle room for these negotiations behind closed doors to land CAC’s.

    Nathan Edelson’s suggestion at the Hearing that the Charter needs to be changed so that we can capture CACs through the municipal plan, and not this ‘side bar process’ (my words), addresses this very point. If Nathan’s suggestion were implemented, then the planning culture at the Hall might be given the new life it clearly needs.

    To Trish French, the question is really, “What can Council NOT do?” Are there any limitations? Does the Mount Pleasant Community Plan have any guiding impact on their deliberations?

    Because, if the answer is ‘No’, then the other folks currently participating in four more Community Plans in our city have a very good reason to be very concerned.

    Back to Bill’s point. What is clear in the plan does not intend to grant additional density over 3.0 FSR:

    Rize Site: “Support the design of an ‘iconic’ (landmark) building when granting permission for higher buildings.”

    The only reason I can glean in Bill’s argument for 4.5 FSR is to make the project pencil out… in the most challenging of market conditions.

  • MB

    Bill M #84, astute as always. I believe your proposal provides the best compromise solution — and a way for Council to send the project back to the black screen of ACAD while also saving face.

    Though I appreciate Lewis’s ideals, his comments about city planners will make them wonder what the lad does for a living, other than knock planners. I am disappointed with his alternate proposal (rendering #54). It was whipped up over a weekend afternoon and does not address development and affordability realities (financing being a biggie — what developer will take take on a risk worth tens of millions without majorly jacking the asking prices on so few suites?).

    It does represent in a kind of character sketch way, however, an ideal world of village urbanism, and I suppose one must aim for Jupiter to get the moon. But the inescapable conclusion is that you don’t get anywhere near Jupiter.

    Oh yes, the truck photo-op. You know I used to drive delivery trucks and you’d be shocked what you can cram into a 5-ton, let alone fleets of those new Hinos. Watson will no doubt have a vehicle weight (therein a vehicle size) restriction, and a slew of large bollards. End of story.

    It bears repeating once again, the overriding result of the much drawn out and dramatic process on this one project is that the neighbourhoods must be more engaged in the development of their community. Creating a neighbourhood plan is important, but it is only the first step.

    I cannot envision anything less now than a series of extensive neighbourhood workshops to define what the acceptable urban design paramenters would be for Kingsgate and other sites in Mount Pleasant, yet still allow developers to make a profit and be encouraged to create delight, enhance / reflect local history, and build housing and retail diversity while they’re at it.

    City-sponsored community-derived urban design plans and developer profit are not mutually exclusive. I believe it is disingenuous to a mature urban society for individuals portray them as such.

  • Tiktaalik

    I have to agree with A Dave 85 here. The best alternative is to increase density over the entire neighbourhood.

    Building a massive tower in order to preserve tracts of single family houses isn’t the right way forward. I’d like to see a lot more buildings like 3333 Main, Jacobson, and Olympic Village scale from 2nd and Main street all the way south. Ditto along Broadway and Kingsway.

  • Frank Ducote

    Good comments, MB.

    Bill Mc seems to be playing both sides of the street on this one. Between recommending rather modest changes IMO (totally within Councils abilities to do), he also backslaps the incredibly modest alternative proposal done extremely late in the day.

    I have to ask, does that fence hurt, Bill?

    BTW, Trish already answered what Council cannot do, which is increase the height and/or density of the proposal before City Council, without referring to another public hearing. (I almost typed “herring” here which, if coloured red, would be appropriatre for those who seem to be fundamentally opposing transit-oriented development in this critical location.)

  • Tiktaalik

    I’m curious does the city of Vancouver have a standard for what is a “transit oriented development?” Have we ever had a second look at buildings we have created in order to see whether people have changed their lives and are taking transit? Or are we just building the same buildings that we build everywhere else, but we’re labelling them “transit oriented development” because they’re coincidentally next to skytrain lines?

    My building has transit connections superior to the Rize building, and yet last Saturday, an absolutely beautiful, warm day, when I came down to the parking garage in my building to take out my bike I noticed that over half the cars were out. Surely my building is no “transit oriented development,” or at least the residents aren’t very transit oriented.

    Is the Rize building, with 320 underground parking stalls for 241 dwelling units a “transit oriented development?” I don’t see how it is at all.

  • MB

    @ Lewis #88:

    What I’ve discussed with another architect, and we agreed on this one, is that the plan appears to be written so as to be deliberately ambiguous. Supposedly, to leave some wiggle room for these negotiations behind closed doors to land CAC’s.

    That’s a h-u-g-e stretch, Lewis. In fact, I think it’s quite offensive, like stopping just a titch short of accusing “planners” of colluding with developers for financial gain.

    The MP plan was never meant to to be, in design process speak, a detailed construction drawing. It is only the concept development drawing that consumes only 40% of the work.

    And I have to ask, for all your criticsim, where the f*ck were you when the plan was being composed in your own backyard?

    The missing components are the community workshops we discussed above and elsewhere that Council mistakenly thought could be made up with back-and-forth with Rize personnel. I hope now they know that the older, historic neighbourhoods require these additional steps. involving the neighbourhood proactively to compose urban design guidelines prior to development, IMO, is far, far more productive than neighbourhoods reacting at the approval stages of specific developments that have already travelled way down the development road.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    It was whipped up over a weekend afternoon…

    MB 89

    Actually, it took about 5 minutes in my sketch book after a discussion with a group of friends. Then, on subsequent meetings and email we realized that the sketch could stand. All that needed ironing out were the details.

    You know, then I scanned it, dropped it into Photoshop, inverted the color of the lines, dropped the white space, added shades of grey and a bit of blue to punch-up the windows, etc.

    http://wp.me/p1yj4U-7H

    The words were captured over a long and considered discussion with many people.

    The drawing just fell out of my pen.

  • MB

    @ Dave #85:

    …people should to get out and walk the Mt. Pleasant neighbourhood. If they did, they would see numerous NEW developments, including land assemblies, within 3 blocks of the Rize site, that were built at heights not exceeding 8 stories. No one is complaining about these high density developments. And guess what? The developers all managed to make their money, too!.

    I’m inclined to agree with your statement, because it’s reasonable to apply a 15%-40% increase in height stepping up northwards from 12th x Main.

    Keep in mind, though, that the Stella at nearby Kingsway x 12th is already at 12 storeys. Not that this corner is the heart of the neighbourhood.

    Because Main x Broadway x Kingsway is the main crossroads and heart of the community, perhaps Lewis’s sketch should in reality be an 8-storey truncated trianglar block building with open space in the middle. I feel that is a more realistic architectural response to locale than what he actually drew.

  • MB

    Lewis 94:

    The drawing just fell out of my pen.

    And I’ll bet you were blindfolded with one hand tied behind your back, and lighting a cigarette or trimming your moustache with the other.

    Which begs the question, What was holding the pen?

  • Richard

    @Tiktaalik 92

    Seriously, you just look at your parking garage on one day and make the broad assumption that people are not using transit on any other day?

    While I can’t speak for your building in particular but it is pretty clear that people that live near good transit take it far more and drive far less than people who don’t live near transit.

    Here is some of the evidence in support of this using the 2006 Census data:
    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/vanmap/6236509/story.html

    Note that Metrotown with all its towers fares the best in the region as far as taking transit to work goes. Also note that there are very high levels of transit usage all along the Expo Line.

    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.

  • Richard

    Oops, I forgot about the one link limit so I will post this in two pieces.

    @Tiktaalik 92

    Seriously, you just look at your parking garage on one day and make the broad assumption that people are not using transit on any other day?

    While I can’t speak for your building in particular but it is pretty clear that people that live near good transit take it far more and drive far less than people who don’t live near transit.

    Here is some of the evidence in support of this using the 2006 Census data:
    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/vanmap/6236509/story.html

    Note that Metrotown with all its towers fares the best in the region as far as taking transit to work goes. Also note that there are very high levels of transit usage all along the Expo Line.

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →