[Langley] Latimer Heights | U/C

BobLoblawsLawBlog · #1 Posted **Apr 18, 2019, 10:07 PM**

Found this online. A whole master-planned neighbourhood in Willoughby/Clayton Heights. Single-family houses, rowhouses, duplexes, condos, a park, an elementary school, and "rooftop patio townhomes" are all part of the plan. The developer is Vesta. I'm a big fan of the grid plan rather than chaotic cul-de-sacs and curvy roads.

Site plan

Single family houses

Duplexes

Rowhomes

Condos/Apartments that aren't for sale yet

Found on Vesta's website
https://www.vestaproperties.com/community/latimer/

osirisboy · #2 Posted **Apr 18, 2019, 11:52 PM**

Wow some pretty tall buildings there in general looks pretty good. What a difference it makes when they don't stick garages and driveways in the front of houses

fredinno · #3 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 6:15 PM**

High rises in Willowgbhy? :O Science truely has gone too far.

But really, at least there's the Carvloth excahnge nearby, otherwise traffic would become even more of a mess. Carvloth Exchange to Wilowbrook T. Centre or Langley Exhange via 200st would be perfect for BRT- wide corridor, plenty of density, not possible to get Skytrain anytime soon... If only there was also a straight bus shot east down 88 to Carvloth, rather than whatever the 562 is doing in Walnut Grove.

Sheba · #4 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 7:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

High rises in Willowgbhy? :O Science truely has gone too far.

But really, at least there's the Carvloth excahnge nearby, otherwise traffic would become even more of a mess. Carvloth Exchange to Wilowbrook T. Centre or Langley Exhange via 200st would be perfect for BRT- wide corridor, plenty of density, not possible to get Skytrain anytime soon... If only there was also a straight bus shot east down 88 to Carvloth, rather than whatever the 562 is doing in Walnut Grove.

TransLink already has plans to put a B-Line on 200th. "Coquitlam-Langley B-Line: From Coquitlam Central Station to Langley Centre via the Pitt River Bridge and the Golden Ears Bridge."

fredinno · #5 Posted **Apr 20, 2019, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

TransLink already has plans to put a B-Line on 200th. "Coquitlam-Langley B-Line: From Coquitlam Central Station to Langley Centre via the Pitt River Bridge and the Golden Ears Bridge."

B-lines=/= BRT. The 99B is at best, a BRT-lite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRT_Standard

Upgrading the 99B to BRT Standard was expected to cost about 350M, so proportionally, the cost should be closer to 175M to get BRT on 200st to Willowbrook Shopping Centre.

The economics of it operating it, though, are more up to debate, but still.

MCP · #6 Posted **May 31, 2022, 1:35 PM**

Residents of Willoughby's Latimer Village/Heights are raising a stink about Vesta's plans to radically alter their original plan to build 6 storey condo buildings... now wanting to build a 45 storey tower at 200th & 82nd.

https://stoplangley45.ca/did-you-or-...your-new-home/

dleung · #7 Posted **May 31, 2022, 4:00 PM**

What a horrific idea to put ANY kind of density on what used to be forested acreages. Replacing tree canopy and wildlife with heat island wastelands. This is why Vancouver needs to drastically densify, so that these abominations aren't popping up in the middle of nowhere and then years later demanding skytrain service however low the ridership out there

mcj · #8 Posted **May 31, 2022, 4:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

What a horrific idea to put ANY kind of density on what used to be forested acreages. Replacing tree canopy and wildlife with heat island wastelands. This is why Vancouver needs to drastically densify, so that these abominations aren't popping up in the middle of nowhere and then years later demanding skytrain service however low the ridership out there

To be fair the tree canopy and wildlife here is being replaced by lower density developments already, replacing a 6 floor development with a 45 floor one will not impact the tree canopy and wildlife any more.

As for transit demand years down the road, that's a good thing. They're getting BRT down 200th street in the next 5 years of the new 10 year plan anyways so why not make better use of it? https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tran...s-brt-skytrain

I do agree that Vancouver needs to drastically densify and all development should be within currently urbanized areas, however, Langley (and other municipalities) see these areas with tree canopy and wildlife as perfect for more suburban sprawl.

rickvug · #9 Posted **May 31, 2022, 7:41 PM**

Surrey and Langley are about to get a massive Skytrain expansion that will create decades worth of transit orientated development capacity in well served nodes. This is on top of the many under-built Skytrain areas available today. I don't see why we should start building large towers that are a 20 minute walk away from a freeway bus exchange. This area of Langley already generates enough traffic as it is.

dleung · #10 Posted **May 31, 2022, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcj

To be fair the tree canopy and wildlife here is being replaced by lower density developments already, replacing a 6 floor development with a 45 floor one will not impact the tree canopy and wildlife any more.

As for transit demand years down the road, that's a good thing. They're getting BRT down 200th street in the next 5 years of the new 10 year plan anyways so why not make better use of it? https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tran...s-brt-skytrain

I do agree that Vancouver needs to drastically densify and all development should be within currently urbanized areas, however, Langley (and other municipalities) see these areas with tree canopy and wildlife as perfect for more suburban sprawl.

They're putting BRT down there because of the anticipated growth - but it won't be well used because any growth in such a remote location mainly translates into more cars, whereas intensification of the central city will see more of the growth converted to transit use.

Spreading transit thin over a large, growing and hard-to-serve area is a poor use of money, especially when those areas are built for cars.

mcj · #11 Posted **May 31, 2022, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

They're putting BRT down there because of the anticipated growth - but it won't be well used because any growth in such a remote location mainly translates into more cars, whereas intensification of the central city will see more of the growth converted to transit use.

Spreading transit thin over a large, growing and hard-to-serve area is a poor use of money, especially when those areas are built for cars.

When was the last time you were in this area? It's hardly remote now.

Unfortunately for you, it's one of the few municipalities in the lower mainland that's willing to up-zone entire areas en masse (unlike the CoV). The whole Clayton/Willoughby area has much of the missing middle housing options that the CoV has refused to zone for over the last few decades and Surrey / Langley are picking up the slack and will reap the benefits.

The transit in the area is currently spread thin, the focus for Translink over the next 10 years is on improving that, hence why so many of the BRT lines are proposed in Surrey/Langley. Also one of the bus lines that recovered the most since the onset of the pandemic is the 531 showing that people in these areas will take transit if it's available.

Your initial argument to preserve tree canopy and wildlife areas I can completely understand, however it seems like with this comment you're arguing for less transit availability for the quickest growing municipality in Metro Vancouver. Proposing that all growth be concentrated in the "central city" is antithetical to current urban planning in Metro Vancouver. Perhaps familiarize yourself with our regional growth strategy and maybe even submit your ideas as feedback to the update to our regional growth strategy "Metro 2050":

http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...s/default.aspx

SpongeG · #12 Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 1:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

What a horrific idea to put ANY kind of density on what used to be forested acreages. Replacing tree canopy and wildlife with heat island wastelands. This is why Vancouver needs to drastically densify, so that these abominations aren't popping up in the middle of nowhere and then years later demanding skytrain service however low the ridership out there

you should take a trip out there you won't recognize it, if you haven't been in a while. It's developing fast, all those old homes on acres have either been replaced or are in the process of being replaced.

Traffic is getting worse steadily. the Future Skytrain is quite far from Willoughby where most of the development is centered. I think it's faster to get on the bus from that park and ride on hwy 1 and take the bus to Lougheed.

Galaxy · #13 Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 4:44 AM**

As a person that grew up in the area in question, it has changed so much. Even across the street from the Carvoth bus park and ride the level of density is very impressive. The traffic growing up was getting bad in the area now it's just horrible. Improving transit would be appreciated by many in that part of the region.

The tower looks great and I feel would fit into the area's mix of types of housing.

Just check out this street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1591...7i16384!8i8192

CondoInvestor · #14 Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 5:25 AM**

this project shouldn't receive city's approval

dleung · #15 Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 8:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcj

When was the last time you were in this area? It's hardly remote now.

Unfortunately for you, it's one of the few municipalities in the lower mainland that's willing to up-zone entire areas en masse (unlike the CoV). The whole Clayton/Willoughby area has much of the missing middle housing options that the CoV has refused to zone for over the last few decades and Surrey / Langley are picking up the slack and will reap the benefits.

The transit in the area is currently spread thin, the focus for Translink over the next 10 years is on improving that, hence why so many of the BRT lines are proposed in Surrey/Langley. Also one of the bus lines that recovered the most since the onset of the pandemic is the 531 showing that people in these areas will take transit if it's available.

Your initial argument to preserve tree canopy and wildlife areas I can completely understand, however it seems like with this comment you're arguing for less transit availability for the quickest growing municipality in Metro Vancouver. Proposing that all growth be concentrated in the "central city" is antithetical to current urban planning in Metro Vancouver. Perhaps familiarize yourself with our regional growth strategy and maybe even submit your ideas as feedback to the update to our regional growth strategy "Metro 2050":

http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...s/default.aspx

I'm arguing for development patterns that support meaningful transit integration, rather than what appears to be property-tax-addicted municipalities kicking the affordability crisis down the road by relying on sprawl to placate demand for cheap SFH/townhouses and then tokenistically offering bus "rapid transit" for said sprawl - ie spread thin.

I love the idea of compact satellite cities centered on rail stations, and passing through rural green space from one town to the next. Seeing various townships bleed into each other into an auto wasteland is far less appealing.

I drew the contrast to Vancouver proper in that while frequent bus service is possible there in every direction, growth at the fringe on the other hand needs to optimize the ridership base into a way that can be served frequently with limited routes, ie clustered in compact nodes. All intensification should be within 800m of the future skytrain stations, not spread out along an arterial bound to be clogged up with many more intersections and traffic. BRT should basically be express service between nodes not served by skytrain given the vast distances between places of interest. What's happening in Willoughby does not support meaningful transit, and is becoming merely a problem for transit to poorly solve.

officedweller · #16 Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 8:56 AM**

The location where the tower is proposed (200th St. & 82nd Ave.) seems close to the Carvolth Development Area and/or in the Willoughby Municipal Town Centre.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...ro2050Maps.pdf

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1561.../data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.vestaproperties.com/comm...age-site-plan/

GMasterAres · #17 Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 3:58 PM**

1. It isn't remote
2. It is in a major area that is seeing intense densification already
3. The general public does not want to live in 100sq foot boxes
4. Most people can't afford to buy North of Fraser
5. Density does not reduce housing prices, this has been proven in Metro Vancouver for the last 50 years, and is the only thing anyone actually cares about. Not the environment.

As for the residents upset, I just looked at their website and to me they don't provide any meaningful reason for being against it other than "we weren't consulted by the developer." Boo hoo. Unless I'm missing something, I don't even see any mention of something like "this will overload the new school" or "this will bring way more traffic to the area."

I mean I'll address their 3 main concerns right here:

Quote:

How can Vesta Properties market this as a master planned community, yet after selling almost all of this development decide to make such a significant alteration to the approved award-winning* community Master Plan without regard to the hundreds of families who bought into their planned vision and the existing community that was part of the original planning process?

Well this happens all the time. Anyone following major developments here on the forum would know most master planned projects change many many times during the development process. Just in Surrey look at Hub, The Holland, even Park Place. Heck the development at Canadian Tire was 7 phased master planned and after 1 phase (first tower) they are completely redoing the master plan from scratch since they bought the Toys R Us property.

Happens ALL the time.

Quote:

When Vesta Properties submitted their application to rezone this particular area of the Master Plan to the Township of Langley in December of 2021, they were not required to inform the hundreds of current residents and pre-sale contract holders, so this did not become public knowledge until May 2022 when a Public Information meeting was announced. Additionally for the Public Information meeting held on May 16th 2022, there appeared to be no effort or requirement to contact the pre-sale purchasers of the many buildings under construction. As the Vesta marketing was across Canada, many of these purchasers may be far outside the Langley area and outside BC.

I don't see any issue. It's not Langley's job to chase foreign buyers to inform them. Also current residents are not the developer. The only obligation is to notify for public information meetings or hearings.

Where I live right now is an example of that. It was 3 phased and the developer changed phase 3. Not drastically but there were some big changes. We the owners of previous phases had no idea, even Strata was not informed, until it went to public hearing. Would it have been nice for the developer to have let us know? Sure. But developers don't give a rats tail about you once they've sold you a place, don't kid yourself. 9 times out of 10 the nice marketing person you spoke to when they walked you through the show home and sold you your place doesn't even work for the developer.

Quote:

There is a precedent being established that developments approved and marketed as a planned community, even with most of the development already purchased based on that plan, actually are not required to bear any resemblance to what is built. This is not an extra story or a different driveway, this is a totally different concept with a 45 story tower. It is a significant change to be quickly swapped in at the end of the project replacing the final two approved 6 story low-rise buildings. At 45 stories, this building is taller than most in Vancouver and taller than those currently requiring significant planning and consultation for the Broadway corridor.

See answer to #1. Has already been established and quite frankly it is understandable. In a multi-phased massive development, it takes a long time to sell and build and market conditions are constantly changing. When this specific project was planned, there was NO strain planned for Langley, no rapid BRT planned for 200th.

Now there is, that changes the landscape considerably. Willoughby is densifying like crazy and anyone that hasn't taken a drive through the area in the last 3 years at least would be absolutely shocked. It is definitely not in the middle of no where.

As for the height, would they be happy with 10 stories instead? What about 15? Or 25? I mean what really makes 45 bad? Everyone jumps up and down about the need for more densification, but then even in areas like Chinatown, they cap that at 6 floors ZOMG NO HIGHER!

It's not like a 45 floor tower has any more people than a 150 unit townhouse complex crammed into 1 acre which is what they are building dozens of around that very same development. The latter takes way more space...

It just seems like these residents are a little bum hurt that they weren't consulted and to that my response is, welcome to the real world where developers don't actually care about you.

jollyburger · #18 Posted **Jun 1, 2022, 4:27 PM**

I mean with the number of commercial (film studios, warehouses etc) being developed in the area it seems like it would support some level of high rises. Just because single family houses were sort of affordable look how that played out in the rest of Metro Vancouver.