Cambie Corridor Plan and Project Updates

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

From a website called "Treehugger". Why not throw in something from The Tyee as well if you want to convince us.

A sure sign you have lost the argument is when you make baseless attacks on the source. Anyway, if you don't trust them, check out the links to the other sites in the posting.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by racc

A sure sign you have lost the argument is when you make baseless attacks on the source. Anyway, if you don't trust them, check out the links to the other sites in the posting.

Its not a sure sign of anything, other than pointing out that in the wonder of the internet you can find an article to support any point of view. The market has spoken in Vancouver, in the form of lacklustre sales at the Olympic Village. Why, in the face of such evidence, the Left feels the need to ram their pet theories down everybody's throat without regard to practicalities is probably best left to another thread.

I know someone who works in an LEED platinum building, and they are less than impressed with things such as its cooling abilities on a hot day. Apparently the ventilation louvres in the bathroom doors are a nice touch that ensure your co-workers are aware of every flatulence you make.

[cornholio]

I would specifically make a effort to avoid "green" buildings. Rather I would look at a quality, that means building quality, things such as good insulation, good quick heating, nice finishing s, ***a shower that spits out water like no tomorrow, ***efficient and good flushing toilets, good air conditioning and ventilation, appliances that do what they need to do fast and efficiently, so on.

So called "green" buildings are overrated, and even though lots of people like to sound all hip and talk about how great they are, in the end the majority simply dont want them, wont pay a premium especially for substandard housing and appliances etc. and simply dont care.

[Alex Mackinnon]

What next, you may have hit an irony overload. That article is a shortened article from the Tyee.

Just like most of the things currently getting greenwashed I don't think most LEED buildings live up to the hype. They do save a lot of energy and can potentially have a decent payback period, but I'd have to say that a lot of the time they don't and that's mostly a consequence of them still being a relatively new style of building. Pretty much all the fancy LEED gold buildings at UBC have recurring problems and subsequently you see a lot of maintenance being done on them.

My favourite example of a building screw up is the Chemical Engineering building having such a huge pressure differential build up that it sucked doors out through its door frames and caused a whole bunch of sealed beakers containing chemicals to explode. You couldn't write some of this stuff.

[geoff's two cents]

I deleted my own post because it only helps detract from the thread topic.

[dreambrother808]

Let's just keep doing everything the way we always have because obviously people don't care. The environment has no real value after all.

What a wonderful world we live in.

(end sarcastic rant)

In all seriousness, yes, we need to ensure that the changes we make are effective and can be afforded. We also need to push for and support such changes rather than just cynically judging everything from the sidelines.

[wrenegade]

Translink has put it's King Ed & Cambie site out to tender. The site immediately north of translink's piece is also still for sale. I foresee that development (or developments) being an absolute shit show with the neighbourhood.

Anyways, the next Cambie Corridor public open house is next monday (April 11th) at 6pm at City Hall. Others for Marine Drive and the Oakridge area are also upcoming (check out the City's website for the dates, I don't know them off the top of my head).

[phesto]

Originally Posted by awvan

Translink has put it's King Ed & Cambie site out to tender. The site immediately north of translink's piece is also still for sale. I foresee that development (or developments) being an absolute shit show with the neighbourhood.

The site to the North isn't for sale anymore...the Chinese owner wanted basically double its market value...it's a shame, but I think the hot pot restaurant will be there for a while.

I don't see the King Ed station site being all that contentious for approvals since it's already zoned C-2 (2.5 FSR) and the plan is for 3.0 FSR. The houses immediately west have also been sold to a developer so that takes some of the NIMBY's out of the equation...

[wrenegade]

From the last time I spoke with the broker, it still is for sale, but ya the vendor wants crazy money. It has been 2 or 3 weeks though. 2.5 vs. 3.0 FSR isn't the problem, it's the height that drives people nuts. I'm interested to see how the public info session goes next week.

[WarrenC12]

Speaking of the Cambie corridor, what's the situation with that empty lot near the 49th Ave Station, on the NE corner of Cambie and 49th?

[webster]

Originally Posted by awvan

From the last time I spoke with the broker, it still is for sale, but ya the vendor wants crazy money. It has been 2 or 3 weeks though. 2.5 vs. 3.0 FSR isn't the problem, it's the height that drives people nuts. I'm interested to see how the public info session goes next week.

i imagine underground parking at the translink site might also be a bit of an issue...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by awvan

Translink has put it's King Ed & Cambie site out to tender. The site immediately north of translink's piece is also still for sale. I foresee that development (or developments) being an absolute shit show with the neighbourhood. ..

Hmmph, is that why Translink just started banning parking there? If they are so hard up for money, put a pay station in, spraypaint some lines and collect some revenue while they're waiting for a sale.

[stopzoning]

Yes it is going to be a "shit show" as you say. The "NIMBYs" as you call the residents will be there in force at any rezoning meeting fighting this kind of unacceptable and unnecessary form of densification in our neighbourhood. We won't let the city rip up the official RPSC Community Vision plan developed in the past 5 years and sweep it under the rug.

When buying my current house I looked into the zoning and read the Community Vision for RPSC from cover to cover. While I knew that some kind of increased density would, and should, happen near the Canada Line stations, I thought they would be limited to RPSC Vision approved housing or possibly extend to “uncertain” housing types as they were close to having enough support to be approved. This exploration into spot zoning is far beyond what was ever approved in this area. This official community vision was adopt by council only 5 years before and was meant to provide some level of certainly to residents and developers alike as to how the area would move forward. The vision took into account the King Ed RAV station and is not outdated. These community visions were supposed to have a shelf life of up to 30 years. There is quasi-contract implied in the official adoption by city council of a document like this and residents as well as developers should be able to rely on this when making large monetary and life decisions.

This plan doesn't create an integrated and complete community. These proposed building heights (4, 6 and 8 storey) would create a wall that is double, triple and even quadruple the height of the average building in the area.

I would like to point out the Cambie Corridor Planning Principles (Adopted by City Council January 22, 2010).

Principle 4 (b) Consider creative and sensitive transitions in scale between developments around each transit station and the adjacent neighbourhoods. (d) Ensure new developments contribute to enhancing each station area as a unique place by respecting the context of the neighbourhood.

The proposed plan doesn’t address these planning principles in any way shape or form. If more density is the answer in proximity to the King Ed station then it would be appropriate to draw a circle around the train station rather than just use the finger or "t" approach. Increasing the density in a circular footprint and spreading it out over the entire 500 meter “walking zone” with a concept in mind that would not situate single family homes and 4-8 storey apartment buildings back to back, but instead that would allow for a tiered approach of building heights (over more than just a half block) to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties. Smaller 3 level row house or townhome developments right on King Edward, stepping down to 4-plexes (like you see around city hall) or even 6-plexes, and carriage houses, and Laneway houses as you radiate out would be much more compatible and would provide a more gradual and sensitive way to get the density increase. The build forms in this new Cambie Corridor proposal do not reflect the neighbourhood, don’t respect the current residents and are not supported by those residents.

Our group (that is increasing in numbers on an almost daily basis) will be there in numbers at any public meetings on this issue and will be a vocal force against it.

[dreambrother808]

Ummm... You aren't going to find much support on this forum. We tend to be rather accepting of the fact that Vancouver is a growing metropolis and not your suburban playground. 4-8 story buildings? You're really worried about that? That sounds quite appropriate and sensitive if you ask me.

[quobobo]

^Good God. You're that worked up about 4 story apartment buildings? Next to rapid transit? I can think of neighbourhoods in ultra-suburban Maple Ridge that easily and successfully accommodated 5 story apartments without complaint. You're living in the city, and you can't even handle a 4 story building?

Also, I mean this in all seriousness: people like you are the reason why Vancouver is so phenomenally expensive. When you oppose even low-rise apartment buildings 10 minutes from downtown, how do you think that affects housing supply in Vancouver?

[golog]

I can be sympathetic, mostly people just want to be consulted and have some trust in what's going on. That being said, 4 story apartments and single family houses co-exist well today in Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Mt Pleasant, along Oak, between 16th and Broadway... and I'm sure more neighbours opposed them before they were built than oppose them now

Maybe there could be a process whereby properties fronting Cambie directly could be immediately upzoned, but all other projects in the planning area have a certain score based on distance to other upzoned projects, and the size of those projects. Allow the changes to percolate outward

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Ummm... You aren't going to find much support on this forum. We tend to be rather accepting of the fact that Vancouver is a growing metropolis and not your suburban playground. 4-8 story buildings? You're really worried about that? That sounds quite appropriate and sensitive if you ask me.

Out of curiosity, do you own a house? Ever had somebody plonk an eight story building across the lane from it?

Its the biggest purchase most people will ever make in their lifetime. The OP did everything "right", even taking the time to look at a very recent Official Community Plan, which most purchasers don't. If you want to use some "greater good" argument, then why shouldn't the City or developers bear some responsibility and compensate homeowners for reduced enjoyment of their property? The homeowners right on Cambie may make out like bandits by selling, but what about the owners across the street?

As to denser neighbourhoods being "better" - I've lived in appartments, condos and single family homes and by far the most "liveable" neighbourhoods were SFH, where the owners were far more civically engaged and community minded.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If you want to use some "greater good" argument, then why shouldn't the City or developers bear some responsibility and compensate homeowners for reduced enjoyment of their property? The homeowners right on Cambie may make out like bandits by selling, but what about the owners across the street?

Reasonable, but that's not what the homeowners are asking for - and besides, it cuts both ways.

If homeowners want to prevent densification, are they also willing to pay to alleviate the environmental impact? Are they willing to compensate people who pay more for housing because marginal costs of supplying housing aren't allowed to reach marginal revenue from selling that housing?

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by stopzoning

Yes it is going to be a "shit show" as you say. The "NIMBYs" as you call the residents will be there in force at any rezoning meeting fighting this kind of unacceptable and unnecessary form of densification in our neighbourhood. We won't let the city rip up the official RPSC Community Vision plan developed in the past 5 years and sweep it under the rug.

I am not family with the RPSC Community Vision. Do you have a link?

When buying my current house I looked into the zoning and read the Community Vision for RPSC from cover to cover. While I knew that some kind of increased density would, and should, happen near the Canada Line stations, I thought they would be limited to RPSC Vision approved housing or possibly extend to “uncertain” housing types as they were close to having enough support to be approved. This exploration into spot zoning is far beyond what was ever approved in this area.

Again, I can't comment on RPSC approved housing, but I don't see any exploration into "Spot Zoning" as you call it. The Cambie Corridor plan is being specifically developed to avoid spot re-zoning. By adopting a plan that outlines certain building forms in different areas depending on their location around certain RAV line stations, developers will apply to rezone as per the currently proposed plan.

This official community vision was adopt by council only 5 years before and was meant to provide some level of certainly to residents and developers alike as to how the area would move forward. The vision took into account the King Ed RAV station and is not outdated. These community visions were supposed to have a shelf life of up to 30 years. There is quasi-contract implied in the official adoption by city council of a document like this and residents as well as developers should be able to rely on this when making large monetary and life decisions.

OCPs and Neighbourhood plans are typically revisited every 10-20 years, even if they have a "timeline" or 30 (or more). There is no quasi-contract implied by adoption by city council. Councils come and go and new plans, visions, zoning can be be proposed by any new council. Usually the process isn't that quick as city staff run studies and community open houses, but things can change quickly. Just look at the bike lanes.

This plan doesn't create an integrated and complete community. These proposed building heights (4, 6 and 8 storey) would create a wall that is double, triple and even quadruple the height of the average building in the area.

In the Cambie/King Ed area there are only two sites proposed to handle an 8 storey building. Translink's current site, and the NE corner where there is currently a 3 storey office building. There are only a handful they are proposed to go to 6. While new buildings may double or triple the current average height of buildings in the area, much of Cambie street is underdeveloped as to current zoning.

I would like to point out the Cambie Corridor Planning Principles (Adopted by City Council January 22, 2010).

Principle 4 (b) Consider creative and sensitive transitions in scale between developments around each transit station and the adjacent neighbourhoods. (d) Ensure new developments contribute to enhancing each station area as a unique place by respecting the context of the neighbourhood.

The proposed plan doesn’t address these planning principles in any way shape or form. If more density is the answer in proximity to the King Ed station then it would be appropriate to draw a circle around the train station rather than just use the finger or "t" approach. Increasing the density in a circular footprint and spreading it out over the entire 500 meter “walking zone” with a concept in mind that would not situate single family homes and 4-8 storey apartment buildings back to back, but instead that would allow for a tiered approach of building heights (over more than just a half block) to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties. Smaller 3 level row house or townhome developments right on King Edward, stepping down to 4-plexes (like you see around city hall) or even 6-plexes, and carriage houses, and Laneway houses as you radiate out would be much more compatible and would provide a more gradual and sensitive way to get the density increase. The build forms in this new Cambie Corridor proposal do not reflect the neighbourhood, don’t respect the current residents and are not supported by those residents.

Our group (that is increasing in numbers on an almost daily basis) will be there in numbers at any public meetings on this issue and will be a vocal force against it.

I don't disagree with you here. A circle approach as you describe it would make much more sense. I feel that the the circle approach would be an even tougher sell though to be honest. It makes more sense to densify the NW corner of 24th & Ash than it does the NW corner of King Ed & Heather as it is closer to the station, but because one is in the middle of a SFH neighbourhood and the other is on a fairly major road (and bus route) the changes are being proposed there. I do agree the having 4 storey buildings backing onto SFHs is a bad idea, but I feel the end result will be 4 storey buildings backing onto 3 storey townhomes, backing onto duplexes, backing onto SFHs. Just increasing density within two or three blocks of RAV line stations to support smaller rowhome or duplex development is not going to cut it.

The city really has only one way to grow. If you live on or within a block or two of a arterial road expect changes. Whether that be Cambie, Main, Oak, King Ed, 41st, 12th, Broadway, West 4th, etc, changes are coming in the future, I don't think there is any way to avoid it.

edit to add: No one can force you to sell to a developer. I'm sure many residents will be opposed and refuse to do so. Because of this change will be incremental. The neighbourhood isn't going to change overnight, it will take years. In many of the areas the value of a SFH is more than what a developer will pay for it, not to mention the amount the city wants to take in CACs as part of the land lift.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by awvan

I am not family with the RPSC Community Vision. Do you have a link?

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...psc/vision.htm

Originally Posted by awvan

OCPs and Neighbourhood plans are typically revisited every 10-20 years, even if they have a "timeline" or 30 (or more). There is no quasi-contract implied by adoption by city council. Councils come and go and new plans, visions, zoning can be be proposed by any new council. Usually the process isn't that quick as city staff run studies and community open houses, but things can change quickly. Just look at the bike lanes.

It was approved just over 5 years ago.

What will be an interesting factor, is that it is essential Robertson's back yard. It would be highly embarassing for him to lose all the polls encompassing his neighbours, not too mention awkward at those block parties.

Originally Posted by awvan

In the Cambie/King Ed area there are only two sites proposed to handle an 8 storey building. Translink's current site, and the NE corner where there is currently a 3 storey office building. There are only a handful they are proposed to go to 6. While new buildings may double or triple the current average height of buildings in the area, much of Cambie street is underdeveloped as to current zoning.

Sadly, its not hard to picture the banality that will ensue. One only has to look at W. Broadway to see what's coming down the pike for Cambie.