HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2008, 6:29 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,141
Concord Pacific project in Downtown Eastside takes a beating

Concord Pacific project in Downtown Eastside takes a beating

I really don't understand why city hall doesn't sell tickets to some of its meetings. They are so filled with drama and passion and unexpected plot turns that they leave Lost in the dust. Tonight was a night like that.


Concord Pacific was at the development permit board to get approval for its new building at 58 West Hastings. It's a project that the Downtown Eastside groups decided was a losing battle they would throw themselves into, among many losing battles they could pick from these days, in order to make the point that the neighbourhood is being gentrified at an incredible rate and no one seems to have any power to stop it. The Concord project of about 150 condo units is one of many going up in the Downtown Eastside, in locations that would have seemed implausible only a few years ago. (Concord has another project, Smart, going up in the parking lot behind No. 5 Orange stripper bar. Ginger condos, by Porte Development, "just steps from the seawall and Olympic village," as one realtor puts it, is on a stretch of Main Street that even the drug crowd thinks is too desolate to hang around.)

But the advocates turned up the gas on this one because someone at the city goofed by not notifying them, as they have done with all the others, and so the advocates got the original DP board meeting delayed and now came out in force to this one to make their case. This became the project they decided they'd use to call attention to everything that is happening in the Downtown Eastside and to make their points about needing more social housing in the area.

The fact that the development-permit board has absolutely no power to stop a development on the grounds that there's not enough affordable housing in the city didn't deter anyone from their impassioned arguments.


In all, there were about 30 or 40 people (I wasn't there for all of it), making speeches worthy of Martin Luther King.

"Greed is not a community or family value to be upheld," said Rev. Emily Smith of St. James' Anglican Church.

"Where is the spirit of nobility at city hall?" asked park-board employee Jay Black.

Marcus Waddington said that John Diefenbaker would be incensed at what was happening and Pierre Trudeau would be dismayed. "Pierre Trudeau talked about a just society. What happened to a just society?"

Stephen Rathjen, who described himself as a recovering yuppie from Kitsilano now doing volunteer work in the Downtown Eastside, topped all previous speakers that I heard by comparing an approval for this project from the board as the equivalent to stamping the schedules for the trains taking people to Auschwitz. "This isn't just a rubber stamp. This affects people's lives. I don't know how you can rationalize a yes when people are dying."

Those kinds of speeches prompted some equal passion from the normally sedate development-permit board members.

John Wall, representing the urban design panel, digressed from talking about design to addressing the speakers.

"Why would we assume that everyone would would move into the building would be greedy and speculative? I think it's a shame to assume that everyone who moves in is part of the problem, not part of the solution," said Wall, pointing out that the units are going to be at the low end of the market and that the building will help repair the dilapidated urban fabric, with boarded-up buildings everyone, on that block.

Soren Tatomir, representing the design community, in one of the stranger speeches I've heard at the development permit board, said he was against giving the project approval. That was partly because of the design ("the colour and palette is nauseating, even the model is on the cheapish side") and partly because of the social concerns being raised. He offered to work for Concord Pacific for free for a year if they would only take more time to think through the project. And, along the way, he slagged city council, saying it's the fault of the politicians if change isn't being better managed in the Downtown Eastside. But they've been busy, he suggested, saying the council chamber was more like a crime scene "because there's been only backstabbing here."

On a more reserved note, however, Norm Shearing and Kim Maust, both of whom work in development, did suggest to Concord that the company take a little more time to think through the project and work with the community. Neither said Concord shouldn't get the development permit, since there was no reasonable ground to refuse it, but they did suggest a slowing down.

It continued on like that, up and down, telling the story of the city and the Downtown Eastside as the meeting went on. Gastown landowner and developer Jon Stovell said it was strange to be together with all the people he had worked with a few years ago on the Woodward's project and now see them so changed.

"With Woodward's, I really thought we hit a high point. What I see since then is a backslide, where develoeprs are being blamed for not developing affordable housing."

And to cap it off, Michael Braun, representing the public, said the public had made their points well about the social issues and so he would confine himself to talking about the terrible architecture. "It's the most boring application I've ever seen come through, like Soviet-style blocs," Braun said about the Peter Busby-designed building, which others had also said was too uniform and needs to be broken up into the more typical Downtown Eastside style of sawtooth, uneven heights and varying materials.

Finally, the three actual decision-makers of the DP board had to actually have their say and vote.

The city's head of planning, Brent Toderian, reminded people of what the board can and can't do. Number one, it can't remake city policy. "Market housing is allowed in this neighbourhood and it's not the purview of this board to say otherwise." Toderian reminded people that other groups have also appeared before the board, also arguing that the board should respect democracy, show some backbone and be brave. But the board has declined to give in to their requests, as well, as those groups suggested that the city should not allow social housing or social services in their neighbourhoods.

Toderian then essentially directed the conditions and he took off into equally new territory, never seen before at the city. Toderian made the usual and expected conditions about modifying some of the design. But he also made it a "consideration" that Concord Pacific talk to the Downtown Eastside community about developing a marketing plan that would make it clear to potential buyers what kind of community they're buying into. He also suggested the community be consulted before the final permit, which comes after all conditions have been met, is issued.

Afterwards, Toderian told me that the city doesn't have the power to put a warning on the building or on title so that people moving in are told: "You are buying into a low-income community that is going to stay that way. Do not move in and expect the city to clean the area out." But it's almost what the neighbourhood needs. Instead, his little suggestion that Concord work with the Downtown Eastside on marketing was the best he could do.

It seemed unlikely, however, that his idea is going to bear fruit. Jean Swanson, who's been working on the anti-Concord campaign, said she personally doesn't want to settle for crumbs from the developer and there are more important campaigns she wants to spend her time on. And Peter Webb, of Concord, hinted that there may be changes in the works for the project anyway. For the moment, the Downtown Eastside groups may have achieved at least a small victory.

"We're not going to race ahead," said Webb. "We're going to reflect on what was said here."

A blog about urban issues, local governments and city life in metro Vancouver. Everything from drugs to development, housing to highways, Chinatown to Chilliwack, by Frances Bula, the Sun's city-watcher since 1994. E-mail Frances Bula directly with issues and ideas you would like to see discussed or leave your comments below. E-mail: fbula@png.canwest.com

http://communities.canada.com/vancou...a-beating.aspx
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2008, 6:51 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Takes a beating... but it still gets approved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2008, 9:37 AM
Hed Kandi's Avatar
Hed Kandi Hed Kandi is offline
+
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
Concord Pacific project in Downtown Eastside takes a beating

Soren Tatomir, representing the design community, in one of the stranger speeches I've heard at the development permit board, said he was against giving the project approval. That was partly because of the design ("the colour and palette is nauseating, even the model is on the cheapish side") and partly because of the social concerns being raised. He offered to work for Concord Pacific for free for a year if they would only take more time to think through the project. And, along the way, he slagged city council, saying it's the fault of the politicians if change isn't being better managed in the Downtown Eastside. But they've been busy, he suggested, saying the council chamber was more like a crime scene "because there's been only backstabbing here."

And to cap it off, Michael Braun, representing the public, said the public had made their points well about the social issues and so he would confine himself to talking about the terrible architecture. "It's the most boring application I've ever seen come through, like Soviet-style blocs," Braun said about the Peter Busby-designed building, which others had also said was too uniform and needs to be broken up into the more typical Downtown Eastside style of sawtooth, uneven heights and varying materials.

http://communities.canada.com/vancou...a-beating.aspx

This is exactly why the City of Vancouver should make it absolutely mandatory that all developments should be born out of an international architecture competition.

I just cannot believe how many disgusting, despicable designs are being allowed to become of fruition in this city. Nearly every piece of architecture in this town is worthy of rank stomach fluids and 58 West Hastings seems to be no exception.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2008, 3:27 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 12,629
^?? Do we really want our city looking like some circus freakshow with a bunch of non-congruent attention craving buildings?

What makes you think international architects are going to be interested in entering a design competition for every development going up anyway? And who is going to foot the bill for all these expensive designs anyway... architects gotta eat too.

The only place I see an intl. design being feasable and even a good idea would be for a next tallest in the city or major instutional building (ie art gallery), not for some 5 storey infill building in an empovrished area of the city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Takes a beating... but it still gets approved.
It got conditional UDP approval, we are light years away from shovels in the ground...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2008, 6:07 PM
officedweller officedweller is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,312
From what I recall, the project falls within the existing zoning (maybe except for a heritage density transfer to benefit a social housing site?). So there really wasn't any reasonable grounds on which to deny the application. If the application was denied but met all the critieria, the City could be sued for acting "in bad faith".

Anyways, my guess is that the weakening real estate market and the problems in the DES will sink this project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2008, 6:40 PM
djh djh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,934
Just to be clear, SpongeG's whole posting is a quote from Frances Bula's blog

(http://communities.canada.com/vancou...a-beating.aspx)


Please cite your sources guys! Thanks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2008, 7:42 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
The only place I see an intl. design being feasable and even a good idea would be for a next tallest in the city or major instutional building (ie art gallery), not for some 5 storey infill building in an empovrished area of the city.
Well we shouldn't judge by area, but I agree, there's no need in doing open bids each time we build a new building.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoaster View Post
It got conditional UDP approval, we are light years away from shovels in the ground...
True
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2008, 11:16 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,141
Downtown condo plan draws opposition
Updated: Tue Jun. 24 2008 14:05:12

ctvbc.ca

Residents in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside are upset that a condominium developer has passed the first hurdle in its bid to proceed with a new building in the poverty-stricken neighbourhood.


More than 40 members of the public and local organizations gathered at a city council hearing on Monday to oppose Concord Pacific's proposal for a 160-unit building on 58 West Hastings Street.


Residents in the area fear the development will increase gentrification and lessen opportunities for low-income housing, which they say is badly needed.


"This was an incredibly frustrating process," said Joan Morelli, a local resident, in a statement. "Every single person in the public hearings spoke passionately against the impacts of this development."


"Yet, the development is going through because we are told it is in line with city council policy," she said. "Well, why doesn't city council change its policy in accordance with the democratic will of its constituents, unless of course corporate developers are more worthy than DTES residents."


But the proposal does meet city requirements, staff said, and will be allowed to proceed under a few stipulations, including consultation with the neighbourhood about its marketing plan and some changes to the exterior appearance of the building.


In a report by city hall staff, more than 200 of the 215 written comments on the proposal from the public were opposed to the development.


Housing advocates have long worked to obtain more affordable rental and low-income housing in the area. They say they plan to continue to fight against the Concord Pacific development despite the permit board's approval.


There are about 11,000 homeless people across B.C., including 3,000 in Metro Vancouver, activists said.


http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2008, 2:01 AM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
For the most part, developers are and probably should be at a higher priority than the DTES residents, who do not want change at all, unless it is one big slum project for low income housing. They do not understand that for a healthy community there needs to be a mixture, you do not want a crime ridden, extremely low income, section of the city. A healthy balance is what is needed, and I think we are going to be on our way to that. In the long run, new condo developments will help fund social housing through taxes, etc. and the area will be A LOT better than what they want; extremely low income social housing, and ONLY extremely low income social housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2008, 2:34 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,141
they want it free and than some
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2008, 4:44 PM
leftside leftside is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yume-sama View Post
For the most part, developers are and probably should be at a higher priority than the DTES residents, who do not want change at all, unless it is one big slum project for low income housing. They do not understand that for a healthy community there needs to be a mixture, you do not want a crime ridden, extremely low income, section of the city. A healthy balance is what is needed, and I think we are going to be on our way to that. In the long run, new condo developments will help fund social housing through taxes, etc. and the area will be A LOT better than what they want; extremely low income social housing, and ONLY extremely low income social housing.
I couldn't have said it better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:27 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.