Little Mountain Redevelopment | Proposed - Page 5

jlousa · #81 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 7:57 PM**

Has Holborn paid for the land? My understanding is the BC Housing still owns the title and the price is to be determined pending the rezoining.

Anyways glad to see things at least progressing, I really don't think the reality will make the video. They need to sell the need for a 2.8FSR, once they get it we'll see the landscaping scaled back and deemed unworkable. The massings are probably pretty accurate though.

mr.sandbag · #82 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 10:58 PM**

lets see, you have the ball park, swimming pool, ice rink, pitch and putt, QE park curling rink, elementary school, one of busiest roads in vancouver 'main street a small single family block which is planning to up zone, im not sure where all this complaining about height or density is coming from, it is the perfect place to add density with the least amount of single family zoned area disruption, it would be very foolish for the city not to let this go through with little changes.

it looks fantastic, i think Holborn actually stepped up the plate and delivered

wrenegade · #83 Posted **Jan 31, 2012, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Has Holborn paid for the land? My understanding is the BC Housing still owns the title and the price is to be determined pending the rezoning.

True. But the understanding is the price will be in the $300M range and this density reflects that.

Question, does anyone know when calculating the density on a large site like this, are the roadways built in? 2.8 FSR seems like a low number considering the size and number of the buildings and I assume that is because the density number is based on the entire site size. Does the city not take those roads back for themselves? Or is the whole project statrafied. What would the density be if it were calculated after removing the roadway? Probably a lot higher than 2.8.

Generally speaking I like the project, but it is probably too big for the area. The distances between buildings need to be increased a bit and the bulk of the buildings should be decreased. Instead of 6 buildings 10 storeys or more, perhaps that number should be 4. There are 16 buildings on the site, 14 of which are 8 storeys or higher, that number could probably be halved (The remaining buildings would still be 6 storeys, still very dense). BC Housing obviously wants as much money for the site as possible (they need to pay for those 14 new social housing buildings), but this project is probably a bit too big. 1200 units? 1000 units? Sure, 1800 might be overkill.

These big sites are few and far between and the city needs to take advantage of them the first time around. Once it has been developed and stratafied, it's essentially done forever. I don't understand why the City (or Province in this case) as vendor doesn't stipulate that a certain percentage MUST be rental. Not necessarily affordable rental or social housing, just straight up rental. Obviously they wouldn't get as much money for the land and the Real Estate department wouldn't be happy (though I'm sure their coffers are overflowing with CAC money), but why couldn't you make a project like this 50% rental? Anyone bidding on the land would have to do the due diligence and make an educated bid. Flooding the market with 600 units or so would hopefully provide at least a temporary dip in rental rates. Everything built doesn't have to be built out as luxury condos, but if a developer isn't forced to build something else it doesn't make sense to build anything but.

jlousa · #84 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 2:55 AM**

Pretty sure at least 600 of those 1800 unit's will be rentals, at least for several years.
Looking over the plan it does appear the developer is using gross area FSR to make the number look smaller.

quobobo · #85 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

Obviously they wouldn't get as much money for the land and the Real Estate department wouldn't be happy (though I'm sure their coffers are overflowing with CAC money), but why couldn't you make a project like this 50% rental? Anyone bidding on the land would have to do the due diligence and make an educated bid. Flooding the market with 600 units or so would hopefully provide at least a temporary dip in rental rates. Everything built doesn't have to be built out as luxury condos, but if a developer isn't forced to build something else it doesn't make sense to build anything but.

Ehh, I guess I don't see why that's better than simply requiring the stratas to allow rentals. Market rentals are still going to be very expensive (whether they're rented from individual owners or not) and downward pressure on sale prices is nice too.

That said, if the city allowed significantly more units/height with the provision that some of it be rentals, I think that would be a big improvement on existing policy.

jlousa · #86 Posted **Feb 1, 2012, 4:18 AM**

incognism · #87 Posted **May 10, 2012, 6:57 AM**

UDP was tonight for this project. Did anybody go?

Just gleaning some information off of Frances Bula's Twitter:

Quote:

At #LittleMtn urban design, staff are recommending 2.3-2.5 FSR, max 12 storeys, similar to Oly Village. Helps mesh w/neigh, preserve views

Developer had wanted 2.8 FSR, max 14 storeys for the 15-acre site. Arbutus Walk is 1.9 FSR, Shannon Mews is 1.8

At 2.3 FSR, #LittleMtn would have 1150 market units + 234 social housing, instead of 1834 Holborn proposed

wrenegade · #88 Posted **May 10, 2012, 3:43 PM**

Totally spaced on that one, I wanted to go. Thanks for the tweet details

jlousa · #89 Posted **Jun 7, 2012, 5:54 AM**

Here are the minutes from the UDP. Some interesting insight.

Quote:

EVALUATION: NON-VOTING WORKSHOP

Introduction: Pat St. Michel, Development Planner, introduced the workshop for the Little Mountain Housing site. She noted that the purpose of the workshop was to get the Panel’s comments and advice on emerging policies and plans to guide future rezoning of the Little Mountain Housing site.

She described the context of the Little Mountain site and its early history as Vancouver’s first social housing project. In 2007 the Federal Government transferred ownership of Little Mountain to the Province. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between BC Housing and the City that confirmed the 224 social housing units would be replaced on-site, that existing tenants would have first opportunity to move back to the new development, and that the proceeds from the sale of the site would be used to fund social housing in Vancouver and elsewhere in the province.

The draft policies are the result of a collaborative planning process with the City, the Riley Park South Cambie community, and Holborn Properties and their design team. The team has worked extensively with a Community Advisory Group, formed out of nearby neighbours, former residents and other interested people. While there is a high degree of support for various aspects of the plan, the draft policies and recommendations do not imply consensus.

The process involved four series of open houses. The Urban Design Panel reviewed and commented on site plan scenarios that were presented at the second open house series in June 2010. Key messages from the panel at the time were that it is the angled building orientation and patterning of open space that distinguished Little Mountain, and that existing trees and the open space relationship to Queen Elizabeth Park embody the memory of the previous development.

Urban design and guiding principles were developed that reflect public and Panel input. A consolidated site plan was created that drew on two of the most promising site plan scenarios. A variety of densities from 1.45 to 3.25 FSR was explored on this site plan, with building heights to 4 storeys at 1.45 FSR, 12 storeys at 2.0 FSR, and 19 storeys at 3.25 FSR. A preliminary economic analysis found that a density of 2.25 FSR over the site was needed for a viable project that would deliver the identified amenities through CAC’s and DCL’s. Open houses held in July 2011 found that there was increasing concern as height and density increased.

In January 2012, a fourth series of open houses were held. The Holborn team proposed a density of 2.8 FSR which they thought necessary for the project to be viable given their arrangements with BC Housing. The footprint of buildings was increased to enable overall height to be reduced and to effect a better transition to the neighbourhood. Taller building heights were relocated to remove the intrusion of buildings into the view of Mount Baker from the top of Little Mountain. The maximum height presented was 14 storeys.

Generally, people thought the site plan, public places, connections, and building variety were working well, but many were concerned about height, density and relationship with the neighbourhood, and thought there were too many 10-12 and 13- 14 storey buildings.

Staff thinks there is significant alignment between the January 2012 Holborn proposal and the principles developed for the site, but are recommending a density of 2.3 to 2.5 FSR gross, with a maximum height of 12 storeys. Ms. St. Michel then illustrated the rationale for the recommendations based on context, views from Queen Elizabeth Park, transitions, sunlight, tree retention, and livability and permeability.

Ms. St. Michel took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments: James Cheng, Architect, noted that it was a good process to develop the plans for the site. He said that now is the time for a discussion on density and height and that they agree with staff’s evaluation of a density of between 2.3 and 2.5 FSR. He added that there is one building in the middle of the site that has been identified as the only spot where they could go a little higher. Mr. Cheng asked for the Panel’s comments on whether or not they should begin a study regarding a fourteen storey building in that location. He mentioned that the proposal will be back to the Panel for a full rezoning presentation at a later date. Mr. Cheng gave a Power Point presentation showing the different aspects of the site at the ground level that showed the transition into the surrounding neighbourhood.

Chris Phillips, Landscape Architect, described the plans for the landscaping. He noted that during the community process and open houses that there was strong support for the ground plane and the site planning. The wedge park, the social community square and the idea of the canal allows for the community to move through the site as pedestrians and cyclists. He added that retention of the trees is important.

The applicant team took questions from the Panel.

Related Commentary:

The Panel supported the FSR with the 12-storey height to preserve the larger regional views as well as the views to Mount Baker;
The Panel also supported the massing and density;
Some Panel members were open to a 14-storey building if it was in the right location and is an iconic building;
The Panel applauded the design team for how the social mix would be integrated around the site with the notion that they aren’t separated but are just neighbours;
There was some concern regarding the amount of water on the site while other Panel members thought it brought something interesting to the site;
Some Panel members would like to see more greenery meeting the canal and more ways for people to get to the water’s edge;
Some Panel members would like to see a larger expression of urban agriculture;
The Panel noted that saving the heritage trees is going to be a challenge;
They had some concerns regarding the possible damage to the root balls of the trees which could mean the loss of them;
The Panel agreed that it had been a successful planning study with many positive aspects;
They thought the plan had been successful because the neighbourhood had input;
They liked the open landscape plans, the creek, elements of public art and the social housing mix which will make for an interesting project;
Some Panel members would like to see better pedestrian way finding around the site;
It was also suggested that the applicant look at how accessible the space will be for people in wheelchairs;
As well they noted that although there is a fair bit of transit on 33rd Avenue and Main Street there was potential for a new Canada Line station at 33rd Avenue and a diagonal connection across the site would become critical;
They felt that the next step should be to look at the character of the space.

Applicant’s Response: Mr. Cheng said he appreciated the Panel’s comments.

officedweller · #90 Posted **Jun 21, 2012, 1:04 AM**

Vancouver Sun story:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...246/story.html

logan5 · #91 Posted **Jun 21, 2012, 1:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Vancouver Sun story:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...246/story.html

I don't know a lot about CAC's, so I don't understand why if Holborn is to get 11% more density, they would pay 77% more in CAC's. CAC's are good, but what's the incentive to get that little bit extra density if they have to pay so much? Is FSR 0.2 worth that much on that property?

jlousa · #92 Posted **Jun 21, 2012, 1:53 AM**

CACs are only paid on the lift not on the base density. So lets take a fictional scenario where something is zoned C2 with a 2.5FSR. If you build at 2.5FSR there would be zero lift and no CACs payable. Now let's pretend the developer is proposing a FSR of 2.6. CAC's would now be payble on the new .1 FSR. Now let's pretend the developer goes back again and says we now want to go to an FSR of 2.8. Although density has only gone up 7% (2.6 to 2.8) the amount of CACs would go up 300% from (.1FSR to .3FSR) Of course it's not percentages that count it's real dollars that matter.

logan5 · #93 Posted **Jun 21, 2012, 2:11 AM**

Thanks for your answer. Do you know what density this property is zoned for right now? And it sounds like they've pretty much gone through the rezoning process as the CAC's have been worked out ahead of time. Not that I'm complaining, it's interesting to see how the system works.

wrenegade · #94 Posted **Jun 21, 2012, 4:32 PM**

It's currently zoned RM-3A, which allows for 1.25 FSR on a large site. Reading through the zoning bylaw, it looks like additional small increases can be granted for less than 50% site coverage and reduction in parking, but it's very small amounts.

logan5 · #95 Posted **Jun 21, 2012, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrenegade

It's currently zoned RM-3A, which allows for 1.25 FSR on a large site. Reading through the zoning bylaw, it looks like additional small increases can be granted for less than 50% site coverage and reduction in parking, but it's very small amounts.

Right. I found a zoning map that's kinda hard to read, but if you zoom in about 50 times, you can read it.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/current...zoning_map.pdf

Here's the explanation for density for RM-3A. I think I get it, but this stuff is hard to read.

4.7 Floor Space Ratio

4.7.1 The maximum floor space ratio shall be 0.60 for a one-family or a two-family dwelling. For all other uses the maximum floor space ratio shall be 1.00 provided, however, this amount may be increased as follows:

(a) where the site coverage is 50 percent or less an amount equal to 0.012 may be added for each one percent or fraction thereof by which such coverage is reduced below 50 percent;

(b) where the area of a site exceeds 837 m² and the frontage of such site is 22.8 m or more, an amount may be added equal to 0.002 multiplied by each 9.3 m² of site area in excess
of 837 m², but in no case shall this amount exceed 0.25;

(c) where parking spaces are provided within the outermost walls of a building or underground (but in no case with the floor or the parking area above the highest point of the finished grade around the building) an amount equal to 0.20 multiplied by the ratio of the number of parking spaces provided which are completely under cover to the total number of required parking spaces may be added, but in no case shall this increase
exceed a figure of 0.20.

Built Form · #96 Posted **Jun 23, 2012, 9:34 AM**

pix by Built Form

wrenegade · #97 Posted **Jun 23, 2012, 3:27 PM**

I think the buildings are even closing together there than in the Olympic Village. Not the best idea in my opinion.

easy as pie · #98 Posted **Jun 23, 2012, 5:37 PM**

love pretty much everything about this, aside from the idiotic (imo) treatment of main street. on the one hand, commerce needs to line that stretch of main as part of a long term development plan along that corridor. on the other hand, the sidewalks (walkways here) curving into the project are like something out of a strip mall, a classic developer move to semi-privatize a public realm so that the buyers of their project benefit disproportionately (if not solely) from the amenity. prescription: set the main street commercial back 16-19ft from the street, provide a thick double tree wall and 12-14 ft sidewalks the length of the block, and create a consistent street wall, instead of these superblock recesses and egresses. so intuitive that it actually takes effort and tortured explanations not to plan it that way. main street and the long-term vitality of the greater hood shouldn't be subordinated to the bucolic whimsy of a single mega project.

officedweller · #99 Posted **Jun 25, 2012, 7:08 PM**

Nice!
I like the varying shapes and the angles - not all rectilinear, but still looks "modern".

I think the spacing comes with lowrise development - the internal pathways are equivalent to the spacing you would see across an alley.

I hope that the Main St. frontage has some retail space.
The only other retail nearby is at the corner of Main & 33rd.

wrenegade · #**100** Posted **Jun 25, 2012, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Nice!
I like the varying shapes and the angles - not all rectilinear, but still looks "modern".

I think the spacing comes with lowrise development - the internal pathways are equivalent to the spacing you would see across an alley.

I hope that the Main St. frontage has some retail space.
The only other retail nearby is at the corner of Main & 33rd.

That is the way it is designed. The Little Mountain project won't have anything more than token small retail spaces (coffee shop, etc).