Grandview-Woodlands Community Plan

[jlousa]

And that's great if we are trying to create a city that keeps people in their units instead of out on the streets.
Towers certainly have their place, but we need to really question the kind of city we want to build. If you build a tower you can never really go back and build something else later, you'll be stuck with that tower for a lifetime.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by jlousa

And that's great if we are trying to create a city that keeps people in their units instead of out on the streets.
Towers certainly have their place, but we need to really question the kind of city we want to build. If you build a tower you can never really go back and build something else later, you'll be stuck with that tower for a lifetime.

^But your arguement against towers is not unique to towers. you can make that arguement even if you build smaller, mid-rise towers.

Going back to woodwards, i have no idea how tall the towers are at street level. I am not sure how smaller towers at woodwards would improve the streescape. smaller towers might mean less pedestrians in the local area, but to me that's a bad thing.

Voony has a nice post on Paris and density. Even select areas in the historical core of paris have been given the green light to build towers.

http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/11/1...icle-of-paris/

[jlousa]

Again Woodwards was a solution to a vastly different situation. The density at Woodwards had to be massive in order to make the numbers work for all the requirements imposed for the site. The storefronts all around Woodwards were empty at the time and the area needed a catalyst. It can't be compared to the Safeway site at Broadway and Commercial. That site needs it's own solution not one copied from another site in another part of town.
Heck the Safeway site at Granville and 70th would make a better starting point to work from. It's located in a more similar area surround by rental apartments and with viable retail.
I haven't said towers couldn't or shouldn't be part of the plan, just that the previous plan wasn't optimal. I believe Vancouver has done a poor job of zoning outside the core, and even though the recent neighbourhood plans offer welcome imporvements they continue to try and copy d/t ideas and place them outside d/t. I really beleive what is happening at Marine Station will be looked back on in a 10-15yrs as a mistake. I just hope we don't make more of them before we learn.

[mezzanine]

Marine station is planned for higher density comercial/residential next to a skytrain station. It abuts against industrial land and the transfer station, but land that's not intensely used presently (wasn't there a don docksteader subaru dealership and the old icbc claim centre there?). I like it, you dont, that's all opinion. time will tell.

I believe Vancouver has done a poor job of zoning outside the core, and even though the recent neighbourhood plans offer welcome imporvements they continue to try and copy d/t ideas and place them outside d/t.

With hindsight, i think collingwood village turned out nicely. a mix of towers and midrises, but room for the playing fields.

[Kapten]

As an owner-occupier of a condo situated in a new tower elsewhere in a 'non-downtown' area of Vancouver (SEFC), I'm strongly supportive of other new towers being built elsewhere in non-downtown areas of the City of Vancouver.

Tall towers in the Commercial/Broadway area south of Grandview Hwy (areas identified as A, B, & C in the Emerging Land Use Map) make sense for several reasons:

* Direct, no-transfer-required Skytrain access to downtown, Coquitlam (via the coming Evergreen line), Surrey, & (eventually) UBC makes this location the ideal location for maximum density and towers will provide more density than mid-rises. "European-style" mid-rise construction would need to be in place over a wider area (i.e. the single family areas east of Commercial between Grandview Hwy & 1st Ave) to achieve the same density. Personally, I'd rather achieve the density via towers and leave the heritage single family areas north of the Expo line intact.

* As has been mentioned elsewhere, towers generally do a good job of maximizing light, an important feature considering the amount of annual sunlight received in this area.

* The plan would afford excellent views of downtown and the north shore mountains for many residents (north shore views would likely remain intact due to the lower heights north of Grandview Hwy).

* The plan would offer an alternate 'housing style choice' for individuals and families considering a move to the Commercial Drive area. The neighbourhood currently offers single family homes, subdivided houses, townhouses, and 4-storey wood-framed apartment buildings, but there are very limited options for potential residents seeking concrete homes in large stratas or rental buildings. I would have seriously considered moving to this neighbourhood when I returned to the area last year if I could have purchased a home in a newer tower.

Other non-downtown areas of the city that would benefit from towers include:
* The light industrial/office area of Mount Pleasant *west* of main and north of Broadway, which will eventually be served by the UBC subway (a few mid-rise developments like Collection 45 are underway now)
* Oakridge
* Great Northern Way / Emily Carr University campus area

[Jebby]

I agree with everything you've said Kapten

[officedweller]

1989 plans for Broadway & Commercial project - 10 years before the Millennium Line.

At the time, an 18-storey condominium highrise and an 8-storey office/retail building was proposed as part of a large complex on the northeast corner of Commercial and Broadway. There was tremendous pushback from the community against the tower proposal and eventually it was never built.

http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2...ower_defeated/


http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2...ower_defeated/


http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2...ower_defeated/

[Kapten]

I've written a blog post about the Grandview-Woodland rezoning at my new blog, MetroThought.

"Thoughts On A Towering Proposal for Grandview-Woodlands" by MetroThought
21/08/2013
http://metrothought.blogspot.ca/2013...posal-for.html

"The City of Vancouver is currently engaged in a community planning process for the Grandview-Woodlands neighbourhood, which is commercially dominated by the eclectic mix of coffee shops (at least a dozen), restaurants, and retailers on the appropriately-named Commercial Drive. The process has not been without controversy, however, as planning staff have proposed adding a new form of density to the densely-populated area: high-rise residential towers in the blocks adjacent to the Broadway-Commercial SkyTrain station. Several residents have voiced loud opposition to the concept and height of the proposed towers. While I agree that the proposed height of at least one tower (36 storeys) could be lowered to address community concerns, I think that the neighbourhood would benefit from the construction of several towers near the Skytrain station..."

[SFUVancouver]

As a former resident of Commercial Drive, I support the move to further develop the immediate Commercial-Broadway area as a higher-density mixed-use node. While I am hesitant to see the floodgates of change open up on my old neighbourhood, I do think that there is a place for modestly tall, architecturally significant towers in the 20 to 30 storey range at the Safeway site, including a substantial office and retail component. You don't need towers for residential and employment density, but that specific site and its adjacency to SkyTrain warrant a Marine Gateway-like (or Woodwards-like) residential and office development, a low-income housing component, and potentially as a satellite campus for a post-secondary institution or career college.

A variety of rental and condo mid-rise buildings (of which there are already a large number west of Commercial Drive) off of the main streets and standard arterial C2 buildings south of Broadway) would gently add additional residents, especially for those priced out of other central neighbourhoods. I think that somewhat taller mid-rise buildings (think SEFC) buildings in the immediate vicinity of the station and along Broadway would also be appropriate, and ideally would include substantial employment space. Commercial Drive itself between the Grandview Cut and Venables should remain largely unchanged from a built form perspective as it is working well and the low-rise buildings generally offer good sunlight access to the sidewalks. Additional mid-rise development with retail at grade should fix the gap between Venables and Hastings and connect up there with the expanding Hastings neighbourhood retail corridor that currently peters out around Victoria.

The neighbourhood as a whole already has a lot of overt gentle density (low- and mid-rise apartment buildings, duplexes on formerly single family lots, townhouses, and mixed-use buildings with apartments above shops) as well as substantial hidden density (shared apartments and houses, basement and attic suites), so this isn't a case of a low density area adjacent to SkyTrain, such as the case around Nanaimo or 29th Avenue station.

It's also worth noting that there are already a few towers in the neighbourhood, though they are certainly not of the same scale as those contemplated for the SkyTrain Station area.

http://goo.gl/maps/T26PO
http://goo.gl/maps/ZYBii
http://goo.gl/maps/cUx6c

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Kapten

I've written a blog post about the Grandview-Woodland rezoning at my new blog, MetroThought.

"Thoughts On A Towering Proposal for Grandview-Woodlands" by MetroThought
21/08/2013
http://metrothought.blogspot.ca/2013...posal-for.html

"The City of Vancouver is currently engaged in a community planning process for the Grandview-Woodlands neighbourhood, which is commercially dominated by the eclectic mix of coffee shops (at least a dozen), restaurants, and retailers on the appropriately-named Commercial Drive. The process has not been without controversy, however, as planning staff have proposed adding a new form of density to the densely-populated area: high-rise residential towers in the blocks adjacent to the Broadway-Commercial SkyTrain station. Several residents have voiced loud opposition to the concept and height of the proposed towers. While I agree that the proposed height of at least one tower (36 storeys) could be lowered to address community concerns, I think that the neighbourhood would benefit from the construction of several towers near the Skytrain station..."

Funny how the neighbourhood doesn't feel they would benefit from the construction of several towers, but what do they know. They just pay the salaries of the bureaucrats and politicians who come up with this stuff.

[easy as pie]

^ yeah, the city would be much better off if current residents were allowed to dictate the shape of development.

[Kapten]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Funny how the neighbourhood doesn't feel they would benefit from the construction of several towers, but what do they know. They just pay the salaries of the bureaucrats and politicians who come up with this stuff.

I imagine that there are more than a few individuals in the community that would support tower construction near the Safeway site, especially if those towers were capped at 24 storeys. No neighbourhood is 100% unanimous on issues related to planning/zoning; I imagine that the loudest opposition voices are the ones most easily heard in media outlets.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

^ yeah, the city would be much better off if current residents were allowed to dictate the shape of development.

Yeah, who do those residents think they are, expecting the thousands of dollars they each send to the city's coffers every year give them any rights!

Seriously, one should have to not only disclose where one lives when posting, but also whether they're living in their parents' basement etc.

[Kapten]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yeah, who do those residents think they are, expecting the thousands of dollars they each send to the city's coffers every year give them any rights!

Seriously, one should have to not only disclose where one lives when posting, but also whether they're living in their parents' basement etc.

I do not reside in the Grandview-Woodlands community; I'm a homeowner living in a condo tower in SE False Creek (note: I define tower as anything of 12 storeys or greater).

I do think it is appropriate for non-residents of a neighbourhood to have input into the planning process via public comments in public forums (neighbourhood residents are already guaranteed substantial input via the PACE program). No city neighbourhood exists in a vacuum; actions or non-actions taken in one area will invariably impact other areas in a multitude of ways. The entire city has a vested interest in seeing a successful Grandview-Woodlands community plan. Furthermore, since the city council is elected at-large (rather than via a ward system), the council and mayor are accountable to the entire electorate and they are obliged to consider input from all city residents, regardless of neighbourhood, when considering whether or not to approve a community plan.

[Steveston]

"Planning" is just that -- planning for the future. You don't put in place plans which serve only the short-term needs of people who currently live in the area, you must consider the needs of future residents, AND the needs of those current residents 10 - 20 - 30 years into the future.

This is why it's perfectly valid to consider the views of non-residents in a neighbourhood planning process. If I would like to live in G-W one day, then keeping the place full of single family homes, townhouses and low-rise apartments is not likely to enable me to do so.

Of course, many long-time residents are opposed to change. That will always be the case. And many of them see density and high-rises as "evil", because there aren't many examples of them currently in the neighbourhood. But change is inevitable -- it's all in the management. And people look at the future built-out models and renderings and assume that "boom", it's all gonna happen in the next 12 months, not realizing the 15 - 20 year time horizon (by then they may not even be living there anymore).

And another funny thing, many times, those who were most opposed to a project end up living in it.

[whatnext]

Residents of Commercial Drive, Marpole and the West End are marching on City Hall today, to protest the city's proposed zoning chnages. Maybe Vision has pushed too far this time.

[Millennium2002]

I'm not expecting particularly high turnout for a cause and event like this (especially with this weather), but we'll see sooner or later I suppose.

[officedweller]

New public consultations:

http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/co...b-21-2015.aspx

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/...a-ws-bway-f21/

The Broadway/Commercial sub-area workshop is scheduled for Saturday, February 21 (10am to 4pm).

Interested residents are requested to register before the free session.

The City made a number of draft plans prior to the contentious June 2013 “Emerging Directions” land use plan for Grandview-Woodland.

For reference, a number of these drawing are posted in the following article: The City Grandview-Woodland land use plan: Top-down/political interference obvious by analysis of draft versions (one with 22 towers!) (Jan 9, 2015).

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/...a-ws-bway-f21/

Never seen this before (fitting for a rapid transit node):


https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/...-interference/

[Klazu]

Uh oh, there will be a public outcry...

[a very long weekend]

man, would be amazing if they could somehow manage to get that pass the anti-development types. imagine it being built with ground-level commercial throughout, would be a new commercial pole for the entire city.