Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Why one West Ender is not a fan of the STIR towers

April 18th, 2010 · 36 Comments

This letter in from Sarah Isaacs:

Response to Vancouver council dumbfounded over backlash to rental program (April 13, 2010).

As a resident of the West End – epicentre of the opposition to the City of Vancouver’s Short Term Incentive for Rentals (STIR) program – I wish to clarify how little our opposition has to do with either eco-density or the STIR program as articulated by City Council.

We oppose three proposals (one approved) to construct towers in the West End. These towers all require rezoning to double or triple allowable height and density, and are only available to developers via the STIR program.

Three towers in a 200-hectare community constitute a visible and substantial change. Because the West End has a south-westerly exposure, they will block views, shroud smaller buildings in shadow, eliminate much-enjoyed privacy, and block hours of sunlight in a rainy, dark city. Additionally, the rezoning represents a substantial departure from decades-long, strictly-enforced West End zoning and development guidelines.

The Vancouver planning department’s recommendations to rezone suggest they are no longer governed by zoning bylaws and guidelines, but instead by trends in urban planning that include ‘eco-density’ and ‘rental in perpetuity’.

Ironically, the West End is the embodiment of eco-density and rental in perpetuity, with 218 people per hectare, over 80% rental, and laws in place to minimize erosion of rental stock. This is the reason for the backlash against STIR: the city is asking us to sacrifice community character, property values, and liveability to implement goals that the West End already embodies to the greatest extent in the city and perhaps the country.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • mike0234

    I think public amenities from additional density should be truly public, community centres, outreach centres, daycares, etc., and I don’t like STIR because the amenities are directed too much to individuals.

    Won’t all rental buildings be in multi-family zones? There are only a few such areas in the city, the West End being the largest. Others are in the Broadway corridor, Marpole, and Kerrisdale. Should these multi-family zones be expanded or new ones created so that more rental can be built? At Nanaimo and 29th Avenue?

    Shadowing is typically mitigated in Vancouver by reducing the size of the floorplate in exchange for greater height. Is the podium/point tower model appropriate in the West End? Is a 6-7 storey streetwall more appropriate?

    There is another model in South Granville (e.g. Sakura and Coco) that might be considered, but I’m not sure what to call it. It occupies a large lot, half is taken up by a mid-rise and half is taken up by a fenced-in garden. The design goals include minimizing eyes on the street, making the pedestrian experience as boring as possible, and creating an ornamental dead space.

  • Brenton

    So if I’m to understand Ms. Isaacs correctly, the rental situation in the West End is peachy-keen, no worries?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Listen carefully to Sarah Isaacs’s message, she sounds like an articulate representative of the “local knowledge”.

  • urbanismo

    “Ironically, the West End is the embodiment of eco-density and rental in perpetuity, with 218 people per hectare, over 80% rental, and laws in place to minimize erosion of rental stock.”

    Yup! The lady has a point!

  • urbanismo

    “the rental situation in the West End is peachy-keen, no worries?

    No Brenton, the rental situation across the city is absolutely not “peachy-keen”. Ditto ownership!

    Housing up! Incomes down! That has been so for at least a decade and no one seems to want to find out why: or indeed redress.

    The cost of Vancouver shelter, across all income levels is way out of whack for reasons no one seems to want to confront.

  • JP Ratelle

    Considering that Vision raised the lion’s share of their oney from the development community, it’s no wonder they refuse to confront the real issues and continue with the programs they have.

  • JP Ratelle

    Oops. That would be “money” not oney and another old cliche……”you don’t bite the hand that feeds you” comes to mind.

  • Westcoaster

    Sarah Issacs and her equally precious peers do not speak for all West Enders. There is absolutely nothing wrong with replenishing WE housing stock (or creating new housing stock) under the STIR guidelines. Let’s call Ms. Issac’s issue for what it really is – “NIMBY” with an urban twist. I live in the West End (5th floor of a 7-story building); it’s surrounded by taller buildings, and that’s fine – I can still see Stanley Park, Bowen Island, and tall towers reflect as much light as they block, so it the end, it’s a trade off – like everything else in life. It’s a wonderful, diverse, energetic neighbourhood, and it will continue to be so, despite the “sky is falling (or filling up)” cries of Issacs, et. al.

  • Urbanismo

    Well, let’s add another “old clique” . . . developer developer . . . Vancouver . . . development development has “jumped the shark!”

  • Mark

    Maybe its time to think about replicating the Kerrisdale model (high density along a small grid of commercial streets) anywhere along the transit grid but particularly in the great low density swath of the city south of 16th.

  • MB

    The interior of the West End cosists largely of low and mid rise buildings, many which are rental and that have heritage qualities. Moreover, they are situated on several well treed and relatively quiet pleasant streets. Why change something that has worked well for a half century?

    Mark has a point. But I’d say “high density” needn’t exceed low and mid rise levels, and it all depends on the design and the treatment of the public realm, notably our streets.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    What were they thinking? Developers need to dump the excess banked density on major arterials as STIR intended. Or at least Skytrain, Canada line, a practical bus line? Instead, the city is setting itself up to do battle with residents every time one of these FrankenSTIR buildings are proposed in an established residential neighbourhood.

  • Richard

    @ThinkOutsideABox

    Just where in the city is there not an “established residential neighbourhood” even along an arterial. The reality is that in a built out city like Vancouver, there are few places except for industrial land where there are not people living nearby who would have many of the same issues that people in the West End are concerned about. If the housing is built on industrial land, jobs are sent out of the city.

    Secondly, who really wants to live on a busy arterial street with all the noise and pollution.

    If some development is not allowed in residential neighbourhoods, housing will head out to the valley and even more farm land and greenspace will be gone. And we will have to spend billions on transportation to get these people downtown. Hopefully that would be rapid transit and not highways.

    It is a tough decision but from a sustainability point of view, it is critical that more people live closer downtown so they can walk and cycle more instead of driving.

  • MB

    @ Richard. Apparently billions have already been committed to an outdated and discredited LA style freeway to the Valley. That and its accompanying sprawling developments will threaten the green zone more than anything else. Transit to the valley remains pitiful.

    The question may well be, how do you convert the burbs to functional cities and towns when the crunch comes? What crunch? Well, chose between energy and economics. The two are symbiotic.

    That question will likely be asked when the cupboard is even more bare than it is today, having wasted so much freeway debt just as interest rates are poised to go up.

    This eventuality could produce widespread smugness in Westenders.

  • Westender

    Richard, I think the kernel of your argument is: “If some development is not allowed in residential neighbourhoods…” (Almost) no one in the West End is opposed to “some development” – but the 500% increase in density proposed in the 1401 Comox project is completely at odds with the surrounding buildings – its density would exceed that of any other building in the West End. STIR needs to be revised to include some reasonable “limits” on density bonusing. To borrow a phrase from a member of the development industry in another posting – this is an example of a “let’s make a deal approach to zoning” and it’s wrong.

  • landlord

    Let’s say you own one of those properties with a low- to mid-rise building on it. If you’ve done it right the rents cover your expenses.
    Then one day a developer offers you a very attractive price for the land. Enough so you could retire right now and double your annual income. Why do you say no?

  • asp

    Like, there are no residential towers in the West End now?

    Are people proposing demolishing all buildings taller than 3 or 4 floors?

  • Vanessa Carter

    In response to Landlord:
    When your right to profit means the dislocation of dozens of people with no options – then your right to profit is null and void.

  • asp

    Due to unemployment (which is due to the great recession) rental vacancy rates and availability rates are double what they were a couple of years ago. Some landlords are offering good tenants rent reductions.

    Of course we could use even more availability, but we should not pretend that we live in normal times. Tenants have more power today then we did a couple of years ago.

  • WEconomist

    @Richard

    “It is a tough decision but from a sustainability point of view, it is critical that more people live closer downtown so they can walk and cycle more instead of driving”

    I see your point, but please beware that there are limits to this reasoning: many employers have already decided to move to the suburbs (e.g. Terasen Gas to Surrey, BC Hydro to Burnaby). This creates a situation where people drive from downtown where they live to the suburbs where they work. In other words, they still drive and pollute – except in the opposite direction.

    @Westcoaster

    The movement to protect the West End hardly consists of NIMBYs, since people who bought in the West End (including myself) knew that they were buying in an economically diverse community with low median income and its share of socio-economic issues. West End has in excess of 80% rentals, 141 dwellings per hectare and ¾ of those high-rises. Shouldn’t you be looking for NIMBYism where the median income is much higher, e.g. in Shaughnessy where density is so small it can actually be called a rarity instead? How many successful STIR program applications do you know of in Shaughnessy?

    Also, there will be no significant drop in rents, because the increase in supply will be small (due to the fact that the area is so dense already) and demand is highly responsive (so each incremental decline in rents attracts many people from other parts of Vancouver to rent in the West End, thus preventing rents from falling significantly).

    As for “new development”, we all know that when we buy we do so within existing zoning, which is subject to change. But like any law or bylaw, zoning should change incrementally and predictably rather than radically. E.g. when I moved to Vancouver, I knew that the penalty for illegal parking would be a hefty fine of X $. It is reasonable to expect that over time that may increase to two times X $. But it is not reasonable to expect that suddenly the penalty for illegal parking is public flogging. That is unreasonable change.

    Same for density changes. To request a change from 1.5 to 2.0 FSR is to request a reasonable, if controversial, change in density. To move from 1.5 to 7.4 is like moving from parking tickets to public flogging. Unreasonable.

  • mike0234

    I find it hard to accept a point of view that is opposed to density – that is, the density of an individual building – in itself. Density is not something you can see or touch. It can be handled well or it can be handled poorly, but it is how well it is handled that really matters. Buildings can take many forms, and it is really the form and the details of the building that you notice. Density can’t be the real reason to oppose a building.

    I like the Silvia Hotel. You probably do too. If it is less dense in FSR terms, it is not by much.

    It is at least refreshing to see arguments against density, however misguided, at least being expressed alongside concerns over shadowing, amenities, and the fraction of rentals. In most of the region, density is opposed alongside concerns over parking and traffic.

  • Jon Petrie

    >>[If the proposals go through] … there will be no significant drop in rents, because the increase in supply will be small … and … each incremental decline in rents attracts many people from other parts of [metropolitan] Vancouver to rent in the West End…<>Vision raised the lion’s share of their [mo]ney from the development community<< JP Ratelle

    Both points are I think unarguable and need to be in the foreground of any serious thinking about the huge increase in FSR's proposed.

    In my view STIR was not intended to lower rental rates but was Vision's helping hand to the development and construction industry during a slump.

    And if Council was truely interested in a less automobile indulgent population they would require that developers of STIR buildings provide no private parking but instead transit passes to tenants for say 10 years.

    Relevant perhaps: Toronto, not known for promoting a 'green' agenda, recently approved a 42 storey condo tower with NO private parking (see http://truecondos.com/tag/tribute-communities ) And gross revenues for the City of Vancouver's market rental tower at Kingsway and Main probably would not change if the apartment rents were reduced by $150 a month and the 90 parking places leased to a self storage operator. Curiously, though that City owned building is 100 meters from 5 bus lines, not one ad has mentioned transit but all have mentioned parking — and the building was 85% vacant during the Olympics, and now is still about 50% vacant.

  • Frank Pollock

    NIMBY? The proposed tower across from us is three times the height of our eight story building and twice as wide. It’s not in our back yard — it’s our front yard and the entire yard. It will suck the value and enjoyment right out of our property and into the cash flow of the developer. Each and every neighbour of the Beach Avenue tower project is opposed to the rezoning required.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    @Richard

    “It is a tough decision but from a sustainability point of view, it is critical that more people live closer downtown so they can walk and cycle more instead of driving.”

    Downtown is not the be all and end all epicenter of all that encompasses Vancouver industry, culture, or education. There’s a whole world out there south of False Creek and east of Main.

    That scares ecodencentric sustainabeatniks it seems.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    …and their other belief is that everyone is young, able, single, childless and bikes 100 kms every day, rain, snow or shine. Notice the amount of 1 bedroom apartments in these buildings? How many families can you sustain in those?

  • East Vancouverite

    @Westender “…the 1401 Comox project is completely at odds with the surrounding buildings…”

    Is it really at odds with the 18 storey building immediately across the lane? Or the dozen other high-rises within a five-minute walk?

    Arguing that the density is going up 500% over what is allowed by zoing is not true. A tower up to about 160′ with the same or larger floorplate is allowed in the outright zoning, provided that there is no other tower on the same side of the block, which there is not.

    If this proposal for rental housing had been exactly 160′ and complied with every letter of the existing zoning, which would mean more than double the parking that will be factored in and no Qmunity/Gordon Neighbourhood House amenity building, no townhouses for families, and no SAFR subsidized seniors’ housing units, and no 60 year protection for the rental housing stock, then would there be no controversy?

    Count me among those who are scratching their head at this controversy.

    With that said, I think the trade offs of the current iteration of the STIR program vis a vis community amentiy contributions are not worth it.

  • Westender

    East Vancouverite, if you consider the eight buildings either adjacent or cater-corner, the proposal exceeds the height and FSR of all of them. The height of the building could be considered less “at odds” with the one existing high-rise across the lane. But at an FSR of 7.5 it would exceed the “bulk” of any other building in the West End so will be a very different building form than each of the existing high-rises within a five minute walk.
    Your comments about the zoning and development possible on this site highlight communication issues that are arising on these developments – and the failure of the City to do much to clarify them. You are mistaken about the existing RM5 zoning for this site and what it permits. The zoning permits a maximum FSR of 1.5 – which is 26,000 square feet on this site. (The applicant is proposing 130,000 square feet). The zoning sets a maximum outright height of 60 feet with a conditional increase in height to 190 feet – but the floorspace is still limited to 1.5 FSR, regardless of the maximum height. If someone proposes a 190 foot tower with a floor plate of 1400 square feet (totalling 26,000 square feet) or a 60 foot building at 1.5 FSR (totally 26,000 square feet), the City would be obliged to approve it (without Public Hearing) because it would comply with the existing zoning. But the current proposal is nothing like either of those proposals.

  • darelm1

    Why is the most densely-populated area in the city the city’s first choice for implementing the STIR program? Surely there are other areas in the city which can better absorb the increases in density that are being proposed?
    The West End is a transit cul-de-sac, already underserved by inadequate public transport. Adding more people will worsen the situation. What about the Broadway corridor? There is plenty of potential there for improved public transport to accommodate an increased population.

  • PGH

    Vanessa Carter,

    Who the hell do you think you are to tell a private land owner when and for how much they can sell what is theirs? The arrogance is shocking!!!

    Get a grip.

  • Vanessa Carter

    PGH: The greater good or common good in any society takes priority over your right to profit. Thats why we still have 3rd world countries our sense of entitlement astounds me. What right does anyone have to destroy another human beings life??? When you sell out to developers that is exactly what you are doing. The greed that my parents participated in during the Aision invasion has contributed to the problem Vancouvrites are now facing. I will never own a place in this province nor will I ever be ab le to retire as I am spending more then 55% of my net income on rent. Pay now or pay later but EVERYONE willp ay for the decision that you make today. . Tell, where do you propose that fifty thousand plus renters in the West End move to if we don’t stop the bleeding?

  • PGH

    Vanessa,

    My sense of entitlement???? Give you head a shake.

    You seem to think it is your right to tell another private citezen what to do becasue it suits your definition of ‘greater good’. Once again your arrogance is shocking.

    We have private property rights in Canada. This is one of the reasons we aren’t a 3rd world country.

    The 50,000 + renters are going no where. If a 12 unit rental building is relaced with a 36 unit rental builing you are actually adding to the rental stock. Once you get your basic math correct you might be able to get a better grasp on issues at hand.

    It’s not a private landlords job to house any individual in perpetuity.

  • Vanessa Carter

    PGH:

    Do you not believe that everyone has the basic right to shelter?

    I am very much aware of the issues that renters specifically in the West End are facing. I have witnessed first hand the devastation caused by companies such as Hollyburn and Gordon Nelson Investments people who unlike you have no guarantees of property rights as you mentioned. Some of these people had to return to the “family home” due to the escalating rental costs despite making a decent income. Paying $900.00 for a studio is unreasonable (250ft) of living space…? Mature people in the age group of 40 to 50 yrs of age are forced to take in room-mates in a 1 bedroom because the rent is too high. Now I am sure your response would be to relocate…Well, the areas such as Coquitlam, Mission, Port Coquitlam, Abbotsford, and other areas of greater Vancouver are almost at par with Vancouver in terms of rents being charged. Factor in the daily commuting costs for one person then you are no further ahead then if you stayed where you are currently living.

    I support the efforts of the developer on 1401 Comox and agree with the principle of increase rental stock and those that can afford the higher rental amounts will relocate freeing the older rental apartment buildings which should lower the rental prices. That concept should work…currently if a developer buys a building and the tenants are displaced each unit lost must be replaced referred to as 1 to 1 ratio.

    Your sense of entitlement astounds me PGH – Again, when your right to profit contributes to the problems that renters are facing in the West End and other areas of Metro Vancouver then I would say no you do not. Property rights be damned…We do not live on the plains of Africa where we can build a mud hut and survive…We live in a climate that requires shelter or we die. The federal government should re-instate the tax incentives for developers to build rental buildings. Unlike say Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal where there are more choice to rent there are not enough rental options for people living in Vancouver. We need more rentals because owing anything in this over inflated housing market is unattainable for most. Does this mean only those who can afford it can stay in BC?

  • Westender

    Vanessa commented: “I support the efforts of the developer on 1401 Comox and agree with the principle of increase rental stock and those that can afford the higher rental amounts will relocate freeing the older rental apartment buildings which should lower the rental prices. ”

    But isn’t it more likely that the vacated unit in the older building will be immediately renovated to a higher standard, and then offered to a new tenant at a higher rent than other units in the building? This is the “Gordon Nelson Investments” model for 1950’s low-rises in the West End and hasn’t reduced rents. Adding 500 new rental units to the existing 22,000 in the West End is not going to solve the affordability challenge. The vacancy rate in the West End has increased by a factor of 10 over the last two years, but rents still went up 4% per year – doesn’t that show that rents are unlikely to fall with a marginal increase in supply?

  • Vanessa Carter

    Westender: Yes, that is what the Gordon Nelson Investment has done. I have noticed in several buildings that there ‘FOR RENT” signs have been up for a couple of months. The apartments are not being rented out as the rent they are demanding too much for them. Eventually, the prices will have to be reduced. On Cardero and Barclay Street the square boxes that Sutton Group are tying to sell for $630,00.00 have only sold 1 since they went on the market early fall of 2009 so that tells me that the despite the so called most desirable location that price is to high.

    If shelter is the most basic right for human beings for mere survival then we need to decide politically, socially that this is the priority. I have suggested in the past that no one including renters should pay more then 25-35% total net income on rent. A friend of mine who owns several three story walk ups in the West End has based his rent on this model. He decied on his own that the gouging and greed had to stop so he changed the way in which he does business. I have been trying to get into his buildings but of course there are no vacancies. Another system that could be implemented is the San Francisco model whereby the City purchases the buildings and then allows for people to buy the individual unit at below market value but the owner of unit must agree to sell the apartment for no more then $250,000.00. This allows people the opportunity of home ownership at reasonable levels. This also applies to rental properties at below market value….

    I have pasted some of the info here:

    ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING?

    What is “affordable?” – If you are having a hard time paying your rent, are homeless, living in an over-crowded situation or in unsafe or unsanitary housing, you may qualify for affordable housing. “Affordable housing” means that you do not have to pay more than 30% of your income for the rent and utilities.

    Are you eligible? – To be eligible for affordable housing, the income that you and your family earn or receive per year must be within a certain amount (limit) set by the federal government. This amount is different, depending on the size of your family and on the specific affordable housing that you are trying to get. The income limits for affordable housing are stated as a percentage of the median income for the San Francisco area, or “Area Median Income (AMI).” Some affordable housing may have an income limit of 60% of the Area Median Income (60% AMI), and other housing a limit of 80% AMI. If you or your family’s income is equal to or less than the income limit for the housing that you’re interested in, you may be eligible for it. There are other requirements that you must meet to be eligible, but income is the most important one.

    Where is the housing? – There is affordable housing in many parts of San Francisco. It is financed, developed, owned and operated by several different organizations. At this point, there is no single place where you can apply for all of it. Continue reading to get information about who to contact and where to go to apply.

    Housing Alerts – Sign up to receive emails regarding most newly posted rental units by clicking here.

    CURRENT LISTINGS

    Inclusionary Housing Below Market Rate (BMR) Rental Units in San Francisco – Click here for current listings.
    The City of San Francisco requires certain private, for-profit owners of rental housing to set aside some apartments in their buildings and charge rents for them that are below market rate. These apartments are called Below Market Rate units or BMR units. Some of these apartments may be affordable to you and your family, depending upon your income. These units do not have waiting lists. You must apply for each unit as it is posted on our website. The Mayor’s Office of Housing posts these units as they become available. Or please call (415) 701-5500.

    Please visit this site to get an idea of how they do it: http://www.sfgov.org/site/moh_index.asp

    San Francisco suffered the same issues as we are today. Sadly we do not have politicians with any vision or balls to stand up against the societal norm or big business. Housing should not be linked to profit based enterprises and that is the failure of our government & society. I know that most will have strong reaction to this statement as this means increase in taxes which I am happy to pay…But the bleeding has to stop because we 30 something’s are going to become seniors and we will not be able to retire nor afford rents is the government going to turn its back on a bunch of grey haired old ladies? I do not see a resolution unless we have something similar to San Fran and individuals willing to give up a little of their pie in order for everyone to benefit.

    I have been hosting weekly meetings more and more people are attending. They are afraid about their futures and rightly so. They do not know what to do nor where to turn – how do we mobilize thousands to take a stand against the property owners, provincial government, city hall…how do we effect change when we cannot even get Rich Coleman to amend the tenancy act which Gordon Nelson used against the tenants at Seafield?

  • Simone

    Vision Vancouver – GIVE THE WEST END A COMMUNITY PLAN. No to spot rezoning until you hear what we have to say. We’re the electorate representing our opinions… architects and developers represent business or corporations yet their opinions matter more than ours. There are over 60000 signatures on the petition I hear and we’re telling you what we want. Do not demolish Maxine’s, do not demolish the church at Comox and do not build another tower (or town houses or whatever) on the parking lot at the heritage site that is Beach Towers (yes, it has heritage status).

  • Simone

    Correction: 6,000 not 60,000 signatures…