Little Mountain Redevelopment | Proposed - Page 4

jlousa · #61 Posted **Oct 26, 2011, 1:38 AM**

Guys no need to knock him, while he certainly is young he's pretty smart and grew up in the industry so he has more experience then a lot of other players. He hasn't had a chance to make his own mistakes yet and is bound to make a few throughout his career and he'll learn and improve from them.
That all said I'm less sure it has to do with Joo Kim Tiah then it does regarding questionable advise from the project architect, but I will not go any further into that.

jsbertram · #62 Posted **Oct 26, 2011, 5:24 AM**

Google to the rescue:

Vancouver's Little Mountain redevelopment stalled
http://www.vancouversun.com/business...231/story.html

Sir Conga · #63 Posted **Oct 26, 2011, 6:45 AM**

FTA Comment section:

"Well, why not help out Holborn and Mr. Tiah and his family? I mean after all, We in B.C. are all about giving away our prime real estate and even throwing- in ridiculously low rate or even free financing.
Remember how we gave away the Expo lands to Li Ka Shing? Will we never learn?

And so Holborn hasn't even paid for the property yet, and somehow our "cash strapped" provincial treasury has found $150 Million to advance this developer for other projects? Hey, I've got an idea. I'll buy a house, put a small downpayment against the mortgage, then ask the seller to advance me $120K of his own money before I even close on the deal, so that I can use the cash to go and buy more property. The seller would tell me to take a hike...right?"

-Rick_65
--------------------------

To be honest, I feel like I'm not educated on the subject to know how true this statement is. Is this just hyperbole? I would love to hear any thoughts on how people feel about this situation.

racc · #64 Posted **Oct 26, 2011, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

FTA Comment section:

And so Holborn hasn't even paid for the property yet, and somehow our "cash strapped" provincial treasury has found $150 Million to advance this developer for other projects? Hey, I've got an idea. I'll buy a house, put a small downpayment against the mortgage, then ask the seller to advance me $120K of his own money before I even close on the deal, so that I can use the cash to go and buy more property. The seller would tell me to take a hike...right?"

-Rick_65
--------------------------

To be honest, I feel like I'm not educated on the subject to know how true this statement is. Is this just hyperbole? I would love to hear any thoughts on how people feel about this situation.

I'm pretty sure the statement is totally wrong. The $150 million was advanced to Coleman's ministry develop social housing around Vancouver. It was not advanced to the developer.

That said, not a particularly a good idea selling off government assets to fund what should be funded out of tax revenue. This was a trick that the Campbell government was particularly fond of. It is certainly not sustainable. At some point, the government will run out of assets to sell, then what.

jlousa · #65 Posted **Dec 9, 2011, 3:51 AM**

Well Holborn talking confidently about going forward in late Jan and starting construction in 2012. Sounds like the plan is calling for ~2000units onsite and possible heights upto to 14 storeys but most closer to the 10 storey range.

Jebby · #66 Posted **Dec 12, 2011, 1:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Well Holborn talking confidently about going forward in late Jan and starting construction in 2012. Sounds like the plan is calling for ~2000units onsite and possible heights upto to 14 storeys but most closer to the 10 storey range.

What will the net gain be in terms of units?

jlousa · #67 Posted **Dec 12, 2011, 5:49 AM**

The gain in social housing units will be minimal, the total gain in units though will be ~1800+.

wrenegade · #68 Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 10:15 PM**

Upcoming Open Houses

Thursday January 26th 7-9pm
Saturday January 28th 11am-2pm

Both at Brock Elementary, 4680 Main Street.

--

Process is slowly moving it seems. It will be interesting to see if they have more definitive numbers/massing this time around. I'll be at the 26th one for sure.

Smooth · #69 Posted **Jan 30, 2012, 11:59 PM**

Latest Site Plan:
http://www.vancouverlittlemountain.c...t-media-LR.jpg

Video:

• Video Link

hollywoodnorth · #70 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 12:51 AM**

WOW! I love it .... has a bit of a Olympic Village meets Venice feel going on .... I love it! ..... looove it!

VanCvl · #71 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 1:07 AM**

That is a cool concept. I wonder how much that is going to get beaten down after consultation and the design reviews. The moat or canal will probably end up a water feature pond.

officedweller · #72 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 1:12 AM**

Looks great - as long as the water features are not ajacent to the social housing, then the maintenance will be on the market units.

quobobo · #73 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 3:18 AM**

Looks nice. I think something more urban would make more sense for that spot (you've got all of Queen E for green space!), but I guess I'm not paying the landscaping and maintenance bills.

Hope this goes through and isn't derailed by the neighbourhood.

deasine · #74 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 6:17 AM**

The proposed built environment reminds me of the urban renewal projects in Scandinavia with a Vancouver flare.

hankthetank · #75 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 6:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

Latest Site Plan:
http://www.vancouverlittlemountain.c...t-media-LR.jpg

Wow! Reminds me of Amsterdam.
Why would anyone be opposed to this?

wrenegade · #76 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 5:04 PM**

Why?

1800 units, 1 14 storey building, 2 13s, 6 more at 10+ storeys, 2000+ parking stalls, and Olympic Village-like distances between buildings.

Not saying I'm against it, just saying those are reasons why some people could be. I don't mind the building heights too much, nor the number of units, but I think the same issues people complain about at the Olympic Village will surface here. Also, the city wanted to see the 234 units of social housing replaced (at minimum) or 20% of the total (whichever number was greater). Holborn's current plan replaces only the 234 units that were demolished. The CoV and BC Housing did not communicate very well when the Province was selling the property and unfortunately there isn't really a way to force Holborn to include more social housing.

Other good news that came from the Open Houses last week was that the small single family neighbourhood to the NE of the site is getting together to plan/rezone itself to slightly higher (4 storey) density to be a better buffer between the C-2 on Main and the new Little Mountain development.

itinerant · #77 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 5:34 PM**

I like the look of the concept, but I think that placement of towers of any height this close to Little Mountain is inappropriate. I'd cap height to 6 storeys in this neighbourhood and lose the water features altogether--replace them with fountains instead.

wrenegade · #78 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by itinerant

I like the look of the concept, but I think that placement of towers of any height this close to Little Mountain is inappropriate. I'd cap height to 6 storeys in this neighbourhood and lose the water features altogether--replace them with fountains instead.

I think many people in the neighbourhood will feel this way. Unfortunately it is also impossible. Holborn paid over $300M for the land and there will definitely be 1500+ units. Mid-rise towers are necessary (and yes I consider 10-12 storeys mid-rise).

itinerant · #79 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

I think many people in the neighbourhood will feel this way. Unfortunately it is also impossible. Holborn paid over $300M for the land and there will definitely be 1500+ units. Mid-rise towers are necessary (and yes I consider 10-12 storeys mid-rise).

It should not be the responsibility of the city to ensure that Holborn makes money off this project, or any other. If Holborn paid too much for the land in anticipation of being able to supersize it with market housing and height allowances, too bad. Their loss. I'd frankly rather see this parcel returned to field for the next decade than concede to a developer's poor business decisions. I realize that agreements have been made "with the understanding of", etc. etc. But I'm just not buying it in this case. As I said, this is a sharp looking development--but too high for where it is. It should be LOW rise, not even mid-rise in this locale.

I think that height in this area is more than a neighbourhood concern.

Vancity · #80 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

I think many people in the neighbourhood will feel this way. Unfortunately it is also impossible. Holborn paid over $300M for the land and there will definitely be 1500+ units. Mid-rise towers are necessary (and yes I consider 10-12 storeys mid-rise).

in Richmond that's considered a high rise.