105 Keefer | 38.7m | 14Fl | Proposed

jlousa · #1 Posted **Sep 23, 2014, 9:18 PM**

As mentioned earlier in The Chinatown update thread.

Beedie has the following project proposed by Merrick Architecture

Quote:

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone 105 Keefer Street and 544 Columbia Street from HA-1A (Historic Area) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is for a 14-storey mixed-use building that includes:
•137 residential units;
•commercial space on the ground and 2nd levels;
• a proposed floor space ratio (FSR) of 7.92;
•three levels of underground parking; and
•a height of 38.7 m (127 ft.)

BodomReaper · #2 Posted **Sep 23, 2014, 11:14 PM**

Looks great, thanks for posting. Happy to see Merrick get more work.

And if the average Chinatown proposal continues to be the 7-9 FSR range, the area will soon be much more dense than Yaletown and Coal Harbour, no? Glad that this is at least one neighbourhood near the downtown core that won't be under-built.

officedweller · #3 Posted **Sep 24, 2014, 12:51 AM**

Thanks.
Looks a bit monotonous with the repetition of the Chinatown vernacular (even with the different cornice lines) - but I like the scale and massing.
It may come across like those warehouses on Beatty Street.

hollywoodnorth · #4 Posted **Sep 25, 2014, 10:19 PM**

a render C/O >> http://changingcitybook.com/

I am liking it .... will really bridge the long vacant gap here. excited to see it better rendered

officedweller · #5 Posted **Sep 26, 2014, 12:09 AM**

Thnaks.

The colour breaks it up nicely and adds a lively feel to the plaza
- would that be aluminum panel?
Hopefully that's not a representation of different coloured brick.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #6 Posted **Dec 14, 2017, 7:38 AM**

i didn't know there was a thread for this building. but some more news, mostly as people would have expected.

Development company appeals rejection of condo in Vancouver’s Chinatown

FRANCES BULA
VANCOUVER
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL

Quote:

The development company Beedie Living is appealing a decision to reject the project at 105 Keefer, claiming Vancouver's development-permit board had no authority to refuse the proposal and that the decision has caused "significant hardship" to the company...

the first outright rejection in the permit board's 43-year history

If Beedie's application is successful at the board, that would give it the right to build according to its current plans. If it submitted a new application to the development-permit board, it would probably need to make significant changes, including a reduction in its bulk – something that board members commented on as a problem.

Houtan Rafii, executive vice-president of Beedie Living, said in a statement that the permit board's decision was wrong.

"For two of the board members to reject it outright on the basis of design, especially without providing us specific areas for improvement, is simply not supportable by the evidence that came before the [development permit] board, and leads us to believe that this decision was outside their purview."

s211 · #7 Posted **Dec 14, 2017, 4:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i didn't know there was a thread for this building. but some more news, mostly as people would have expected.

Development company appeals rejection of condo in Vancouver’s Chinatown

FRANCES BULA
VANCOUVER
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL

I hate to say it, but the City has it coming. As a taxpayer I'm conflicted, but frankly the various City departments could use a rather harsh damnation to wake them up.

WarrenC12 · #8 Posted **Dec 14, 2017, 6:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

I hate to say it, but the City has it coming. As a taxpayer I'm conflicted, but frankly the various City departments could use a rather harsh damnation to wake them up.

Sorry which side of the argument are you on? The "activitists" were extremely vocal on this one and full of vitriol for the city on this. They caused the cancellation.

I always get confused as to whether the city is in the pockets of developers or NIMBYs...

LeftCoaster · #9 Posted **Dec 17, 2017, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

I hate to say it, but the City has it coming. As a taxpayer I'm conflicted, but frankly the various City departments could use a rather harsh damnation to wake them up.

I'd gladly pay my share of the city getting a wake up call. The decision was indefensible.

Feathered Friend · #10 Posted **Feb 24, 2018, 12:00 AM**

In a stunning development, the Variance Board has refused to consider Beedie's appeal of the Development Permit Board's decision on 105 Keefer.

For the legal reasoning for the decision, and more info, go here:
https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/0...keefer-appeal/

osirisboy · #11 Posted **Feb 24, 2018, 12:28 AM**

So from what I got it was a matter of it not falling within their jurisdiction versus them making any judgment. The next step is to take the city to court?

Feathered Friend · #12 Posted **Feb 24, 2018, 4:12 AM**

My impression is that the applicant was totally blindsided by this today. As such, I can't imagine that even they know what the next step is at this point.

whatnext · #13 Posted **Feb 26, 2018, 5:31 PM**

Delete

rofina · #14 Posted **Feb 26, 2018, 7:59 PM**

I hate this - because its our tax dollars - but the City needs to be massively punished for the whole debacle at 105 Keefer.

This is a direct attack on private property rights.

The Province interviewed the activist group behind the opposition to this site; they explicitly stated in the interview, if Beedie Living thinks this land belongs to them they are wrong.
EDIT: Direct quote: 'Your name may be on the deed, but 105 Keefer belongs to us."

I hope everyone has a fundamental understanding of just how insanely dangerous an idea that is.

For the City to even entertain this circus as long as it has, does lasting and measurable damage to the very foundations of our civil society.

EDIT: Link to article. And quote updated:

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-n...ers-front-door

mezzanine · #15 Posted **Feb 26, 2018, 9:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rofina

I hate this - because its our tax dollars - but the City needs to be massively punished for the whole debacle at 105 Keefer.

This is a direct attack on private property rights.

The Province interviewed the activist group behind the opposition to this site; they explicitly stated in the interview, if Beedie Living thinks this land belongs to them they are wrong.
EDIT: Direct quote: 'Your name may be on the deed, but 105 Keefer belongs to us."

I hope everyone has a fundamental understanding of just how insanely dangerous an idea that is.

For the City to even entertain this circus as long as it has, does lasting and measurable damage to the very foundations of our civil society.

EDIT: Link to article. And quote updated:

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-n...ers-front-door

Where have you been for the past +10 years?

Feathered Friend · #16 Posted **Aug 27, 2019, 11:21 PM**

Quote:

Vancouver developer takes city to court over rejected Chinatown proposal
Beedie Holdings is seeking a judicial review of its proposal for 105 Keefer St.
Jessica Kerr / Vancouver Courier
AUGUST 27, 2019 02:54 PM

The Vancouver company behind a contentious Chinatown development application that was rejected by the city is seeking a judicial review of the decision made nearly two years ago.

In a petition to the court filed in B.C. Supreme Court Aug. 16, Beedie Holdings Ltd. is asking the court to set aside the November 2017 decision by Vancouver’s development permit board and grant a development permit for its proposed project at 105 Keefer St...

...Beedie argues that in rejecting the proposal, Kelley and Dobrovolny did not specify how the application was contrary to the guidelines or why any outstanding concerns could not be addressed by adding conditions to the permit. The company says the refusal letter received from the city also “provided little direction as to how to proceed with any new application that would meet their expectations.”

The company says the vagueness of the reasons for rejection created “procedural unfairness.”

“Furthermore, the city’s refusal to apply the protocol was discriminatory against the petitioner, no other DP application having been refused outright.”
According to the court filing, in recent history, all applications advanced to the development permit board have been approved with the exception of one, at 2995 Wall St., which was deferred.

Beedie is seeking to have the board’s decision overturned and a development permit issued or, alternatively, a court order compelling the city to specify precisely what changes must be made to get a permit.

The city has yet to file a response to the lawsuit.
— With files from Mike Howell

More information at

https://www.vancourier.com/news/vanc...medium=twitter

LeftCoaster · #17 Posted **Sep 16, 2019, 6:36 PM**

Good. Someone needed to ensure landowners rights are not arbitrarily ignored by City staff.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #18 Posted **Sep 16, 2019, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Good. Someone needed to ensure landowners rights are not arbitrarily ignored by City staff.

as soon as it was denied i had a feeling this would end up in the courts since there is absolutely no reasoning for it. it literally met all the requirements by the Citty and they just said "no." that is not allowed unless land-rights are a thing of the past now.

Changing City · #19 Posted **Oct 5, 2020, 7:51 PM**

An update on the court case. As I understand the summary, Beedie wanted a trial, rather than a judicial review. They didn't get a trial, and have to pay the City's costs. The judicial review can proceed (unless Beedie take some other legal action - I'm not sure whether they can appeal this decision, but I suspect they can't).

Feathered Friend · #20 Posted **Oct 7, 2020, 4:48 AM**

Two interesting items buried in that judgement.

Quote:

Line 39
The City also says that, from 2016-2017, the Director of Planning refused 106 of 2,309 submitted applications, not including applications for proposed cannabis uses of property, which have been regularly refused by the Director of Planning in recent years.

Line 86
Ensure a proportional process given what Beedie says is a substantial loss in value of the Property (said to in excess of $12 million).

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/2...SC1441cor1.htm