All of us who care about politics in the city are waiting to see which of the potential Vision challengers will mount the most effective, publicly appealing option for those wishing to park their votes somewhere besides with the ruling party.
The two parties on what some would describe as the left were in action the past few days, with COPE holding a policy-development weekend and the Greens announcing three new candidates who will run along with Adriane Carr in the fall.
Absolutely not to my surprise, Pete Fry of the Strathcona Residents’ Association is one of the new Green candidates, as is Tracey Moir, who has been leading the charge against Oakridge in that neck of the woods.
COPE chair Tim Louis said he sees the two parties as sharing a lot of values and he hopes that, whatever COPE members decide in terms of how many candidates to run, the two will complement each other rather than competing.
188 responses so far ↓
1 Bill Lee // Apr 10, 2014 at 3:30 pm
@MB // Apr 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm 147
Have you seen the ‘experimental’ density at 5709-5761 St George Street. just south of East 41st and across the street from John Oliver High school.
Silk Development got special permission to run 16 townhouses over 3 lots
While I can’t find it right now via the planning department UPdate website, the VanMap website inshows the current “hot” areas for building plans. West Side and Kingsway are littered with little dark 5-pointed stars. Oy!
+_______________________________+
Planning Update
The following is a list of the
current projects and activities
of the Planning Department
cfapp.vancouver.ca/planning_wa/index.cfm
+_______________________________+
The speculator’s sites are giving the addess as 5731 St. George Street.
Google Maps and Bing.com/maps Birds Eye view still show the housing set of 2 years ago.
That real estate flyer called Georgia Straight had preliminary story on hearings
A “gentle” densification in South Vancouver / by Carlito Pablo on May 9, 2012 at 2:36 pm in straight.com/news/gentle-densification-south-vancouver
I don’t believe the prices are extant from 2012
The PR Sites
stgeorgetownhomes.ca and perfcon.net/portfolio/silk-saint-george
2 Bill Lee // Apr 10, 2014 at 3:46 pm
OMG!
Downtown history fades as century-old houses give way to condos
By Charles Hamilton, The (Saskatoon) Starphoenix April 10, 2014 3:08 PM
[ MORE, another 600 words at http://thestarphoenix.com/news/Downtown+houses+disappearing/9722353/story.html
Rough numbers from Wiki entry, but the Demographics chapter argues about guesstimates and annexations [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon#Demographics ]
Population (2011)
• City 222,189
• Density 1,060.3/km2 (2,746/sq mi)
• Metro 260,600
Demonym Saskatonian
3 brilliant // Apr 10, 2014 at 11:02 pm
One has to wonder why progressives don’t just pick up en masse and move to Copenhagen since they seem to regard it as some kind of nirvana. Could it be they don’t want to live in a country that usually captures top spot in taxation levels?
4 Roger Kemble // Apr 11, 2014 at 8:18 am
“One has to wonder why progressives don’t just pick up en masse and move to Copenhagen . . .”
Because, brilliant @ #153, when the novelty of the move wears off, all the familiar daily bugs will still be there.
There are three essentials that make housing out of reach for average family households world wide (NO, Vancouver is not unique):
1) Fractional reserve banking!
2) Off-shore money laundering!
3) A nefarious long-term haven for large sums of capital in a country that appears to be (for the moment) stable.
And since there is a small number of very powerful people who benefit no politician, local, provincial or national will touch it!
(1) is by far the most insidious and ubiquitous that common knowledge now knows to be a liability but . . . !
As for row houses on arterials or fee-simple on SF plats, no prob.
However such layouts were the norm in Europe during the early part of the last century and before.
They were usually developed around a common garden square and for today’s RE obsessives that is a waste of profit yielding land ergo, a no no.
(And of course it feeds the myth of a shortage of Metro land: i.e. check out the badly planned, inappropriately used, low density, waste of good land on FC flats!)
Each residence, living in the UK’s Victorian/Edwardian Squares was given a key to the garden gate: my sister lives in such a place today.
As for this visceral angst against towers well I suggest they ain’t gonna go away.
I live on the tenth floor of a seventeen floor tower on the waterfront. There are students and OAP’s like me: the students come and go but us OAP’s are here, luvin’ it, forever!
I nevertheless enjoy reading MB‘s wide scholarship, irrelevant as it may be locally!
5 boohoo // Apr 11, 2014 at 8:35 am
@153
Where would regressives like yourself move? What do you think is nirvana?
6 MB // Apr 11, 2014 at 12:38 pm
@ Bill Lee 151,
Thanks again for some very informative links.
I wonder if Silk really can bring in an average price of ~$619K per 3-br townhouse considering the costs of underground parking and land. If so, then they are offering a reasonable alternaitve to the SF homes …. and to empty nesters tired of shoveling snow and mowing lawns. I hope they can adequately address sound proofing and privacy through construction deaign and techneques at those prices.
A few years ago I was involved in a project that densified three SF large lots, one of them with a major salmon-bearing stream ran diagonally through it. The negotiations with the city led to increased density above bylaw standards (12 condo units with u/g parking on two of the lots) in exchange for the developer putting erosion control measure in place and planting several hundred native tree and understorey species to convert the last lot back to Riparian forest. The DFO setbacks there exceeded the 30m standard.
I think it worked well and balanced the issues, like dovetail joinery. The only drawback in my view was that the architecture royally sucked. Nothing like walls of grey vinyl against a forested background to make your stomach churn.
7 MB // Apr 11, 2014 at 12:40 pm
….construction and design techniques …
8 MB // Apr 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm
@ brillo 126:
like.I observed.the Visionistas Re obviously terrified of the Greens so its smear, smear smear.
No.
I’m only looking for evidence that Adriane Carr will be worth my vote again.
So far I haven’t found much to attract my X. There are just too many shallow platitudes, contradictions and lack of substance in the VanGreen policy platform and Carr’s record. Though there are some generalities I can kinda sorta maybe agree with, the only thing of substance seems to be defining 1001 ways to say No! to almost everything that comes across their desk.
Carr’s 9-point rejection of the Oakridge development would make a great case study in repetitive nay-talk and doublespeak in part using wrong data (e.g. the Canada Line is already at capacity) without one word devoted to define what her alternative would be. One can only assume now she prefers to preserve the existing vast acreage of heritage asphalt and listen only to the loudest negative community activists in the room.
Rejection will not lower the towers, inspire negotiation in good faith with the owners / developer, or foster a positive line of communication with senior governments to inspire adequate funding for better transit and public services.
By the way, public services do not precede development, they follow. Carr has it backward.
The Greens would refocus the region on “livability over growth” but then would turn 180 degrees two paragraphs later and “support Smart Growth”, something I too can get behind, but it’s still growth. Which is it to be? Do they actually want stagnation?
Most of us know what Vision and the NPA are about, and we know both of them need an effective opposition should they win a majority. I just don’t see the Greens occupying that role without doing a lot more research and develop a better understanding on just what makes cities tick, and realizing just how important and undervalued cities have become in this country.
They need to say, Here’s how it can be done better, then articulate in detail just how that can come about. Instead we hear a highly reactionary No! time after time. In my opinion the Greens are not yet qualified to form a large opposition, let alone a ruling administration, with or without COPE.
As a voter who prefers a mixed council, I am so not impressed. I wish I could say differently.
9 Dr. Frankentower // Apr 11, 2014 at 5:03 pm
“So, doc, what else do you expect to occur on the land adjacent to rapid transit stations? Six storey Parisian apartments?”
I don’t expect it, no, not with our current council, which is focussed almost entirely on meeting the demand for investor class condo towers.
Regrettably, you (like so many self-proclaimed environmentalists) appear to be clueless to the fact that investor demand is driving new construction in the city, not population growth.
This obvious error undermines just about everything you write. It is painful to watch someone who is obviously very intelligent and well read repeat like gospel this fundamental fallacy.
Would I prefer six storey apartments over towers? Yes, I would. As you know, it would be far more sustainable, liveable and better for the environment. Furthermore, this building type would yield higher densities than towers.
In general, I would prefer to see the city’s neighbourhoods grow incrementally within the zoned capacity, which is more human-scale. (And please don’t BS us with the “stagnant” claim, no-one is advocating that).
So I find it particularly disappointing to watch a faction of highly vocal “environmentalists” advocating for growth hormones over organic growth. The hypocrisy is stunning.
Re. the Green Party’s rejection of condo towers in neighbourhoods outside the downtown core, you claim “there are just too many shallow platitudes, contradictions and lack of substance in the… policy platform and …record.”
It is Vision that needs to show the proof justifying their policies. No more “green” hubris. Evaluate the actual performance and back it up with some verifiable evidence.
There are three non-core neighbourhoods with towers approved now – Historic Area, Mt. Pleasant, and Cambie Corridor. The biggest issue appears to me to be that, as soon as one “special site” is approved, rampant speculation follows, rendering all other building forms (and social housing) too unaffordable to build. Land lift causes more land lift.
I don’t see any of the positive benefits that have been touted (in the “green” platitudes and pop theories) actually being realized. However, just about everything the neighbourhoods (and the Green Party) have articulated concern about has come true.
Convince me otherwise.
10 Roger Kemble // Apr 12, 2014 at 6:03 am
This constant wretch against the tower is becoming offensive to the mature intelligence.
Pining for a bucolic urban walk-about that never was and never will be leaves the neighbourhood vulnerable to the deep pockets of the predator class to do what it wants whilst the neigbours genuflect at prayer.
And please do not rely on the elected entity: we have seen their let-down too often!
I am not suggesting wall-to-wall towers . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/theyorkshirelad72/working.mount.pleasant.html
. . . in the manner of four story walk-ups as regale Cambie and Kits since WWll.
I am suggesting good land use, good urban design deeply concentrating urban amenity, education, entertainment, daily necessities, medical, within a very tight foot-print to, essentially, provide everything the family needs from alighting transit to gossiping under the arbors before carrying the groceries home, all within a manageable radius and yes thirty stories while the neighbours whine at that abomination Rize Alliance!
The point of this plan is to recognize a vital neighbourhood center plan for Mount Pleasant centered around a nucleus of amenity: it sure beats giving the off-shore investor her head while the neighbours follow Robert’s Rules. The point it to provide a concentration, may I repeat, of amenities within walkable proximity: transit centre, education, entertainment medial etc . . .
This C$25g luncheon we are vicariously enjoying, anything for the investor nothing for the locale, is palpably a losing gambit.
While MB whines about Copenhagen the city bleeds its best as we regret our one-dimensional trash-talk sooner than later!
11 brilliant // Apr 12, 2014 at 11:29 am
@Dr.Frankentower 159 +1000!
@Mb158-it’s pretty telling that you have no problem with the mayor selling access to the pleasure of his company for $25k yet disparage Carr for listening to her constituents (you know, those people who elect politicians). Tell us again, how many developments have you been involved with?
12 spartikus // Apr 12, 2014 at 9:49 pm
What the Usual Suspects hear:
Green Party SUX
What is actually being said:
The Green Party needs to define itself in a manner that it’s name suggests. You face a formidable opponent and simply being “anti” won’t cut it.
Nevertheless, the Usual Suspects will interpret such advice as being “Pro-Vision”.
And they will once again dance into the electoral graveyard. Completely oblivious to their role in their failure.
13 Roger Kemble // Apr 13, 2014 at 6:52 am
Green Party SUX
When their home town is used as an ATM spartikus @ #162 no one cares much for the cute comments!
14 brilliant // Apr 13, 2014 at 8:49 am
@spartikus-the usual massive aggressive Visionistas deliberately misunderstand the role of Oposition in Council. They also apparently can’t deduce Carr’s clear position -no inappropriately scaled towers when citizens don’t want them.. Look for other building forms instead.
15 spartikus // Apr 13, 2014 at 10:04 am
The commenter of #164 continues to be the epitome of what I was advising against.
By remarkable coincidence, I had a nice chat last night with a former Green Party candidate in the last provincial election. He had a number of interesting things to say:
1. When asked if planned to run again, he said “No, it’s time to start bringing in some income.”
Although he didn’t say it directly, it really struck me just how expensive it is to be a candidate. Not just the expenses of a modest campaign like the Greens ran but also the lost income when on the campaign trail. We want good people to run, but it’s a real economic sacrifice for anyone but the very wealthy.
2. He said the Green Party might need to change it’s name. When canvassing he was really struck how they were caught between the hardcore environmentalists who in essence want to deconstruct capitalism (presumably to go back to hunting-gathering) and those that thought/feared the Green Party wanted to deconstruct capitalism. “We’re don’t, we are a pro-market party that feels we can prosper by living in an ecologically balanced manner”. In other words, there is confusion in the electorate about what they represent. (There is probably confusion in the Green Party as well).
3. He was complimentary to Adrianne Carr – “I’ve met her a number of times and she struck me as a sincere person who tries to reach out across party lines”.
4. He hasn’t paid much attention to municipal politics, but he has recently had encounters with hard-core, militant ideologues whose stridency was self-defeating. “They turn off voters” He was specifically referencing COPE, but this can apply to our bevy of right-wing commentators here.
You see, when you label your opposition as, in essence, evil compromise becomes impossible. You’ve made it a struggle of life and death – anything less than complete victory on any issue is a sell-out.
I had the epiphany a couple years ago that the best rebuttal to the comments of the Usual Suspects was silence. Give them rope and they will hang themselves.
You turn off substantially more people – the lurkers of this board – than your hard-core reflexive opposition sways. (I’m half-convinced your stridency is responsible for sending a few thousand votes to VV).
But you will, as you did in #164, ignore this advice and double-down.
Rinse, repeat.
16 brilliant // Apr 13, 2014 at 6:45 pm
@spartikus-an unsurprising very boohoo-like comment.”Parties are awful except for Vision”. If you want hardcore ideology look no further than Gregor’s gang with their intolerant evangelical stance on density, bike lanes etc.
What is remarkable that you and your ilk have been as thoroughly fooled and deluded as Gregor-you’re all just dancing to the developers tune.
17 spartikus // Apr 13, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Rinse, repeat.
18 brilliant // Apr 13, 2014 at 11:46 pm
@spartikus-how very adult of you. You should take your sch tick to a kindergarten sometime it would be right at home.
19 jenables // Apr 14, 2014 at 3:27 pm
From what I can see, it’s the people who don’t support vision who like Carr and see her as standing up for the people and reflecting how they feel about the extremely rapid pace with which the city is being changed. I think you need to give the lurkers a bit more credit – I have met some of those lurkers, spart, and I can assure you they are fully intelligent and have the capacity to think critically. That’s probably why they don’t comment lol.
Some food for thought. I greatly fear a city lacking in green (plantlife). Each day houses are going down strictly for the lot they were built on, which is then gutted of all life and built out. The removal of these plants (and the relegation of them onto rooftops, etc -never much room for nature in an architects diagram it seems) could have much more far reaching consequences than any of you seem to realise, as they seem to be the MOST effective tool to remove toxins from the immediate environment.
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/botany/botany_map/articles/article_10.html
Which is something I’ve long suspected. In this sense maybe it isn’t appropriate send all those mature gardens to landfill to please the density Gods. In that sense I can think of worse things than sprawl if it means people have lawns and gardens. After all, if what was being done was so good for us, why would developers be paying so much money to politicians to do it? Perhaps Carr’s principals are greener in the truest sense of the word and not whatever urbanism vast amounts of money have bought into fashion.
20 jenables // Apr 14, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Haha, I used the same phrase twice in a row. Sorry! Here’s a talking parrot who I’d happily welcome as our new overlord to distract you from that fact.
Watch “Swearing Parrot Total Nutter Sparky(AS SEEN ON TV)” on YouTube
Swearing Parrot Total Nutter Sparky(AS SEEN ON TV): http://youtu.be/TRhvUJIwbV0
21 boohoo // Apr 14, 2014 at 3:38 pm
” In that sense I can think of worse things than sprawl if it means people have lawns and gardens.”
It’s easy to pick apart something as complex as sprawl and say ‘look at this one thing, it’s better in a sprawling development’.
That in no way makes that sprawling development the better overall plan or approach. Of course density has its problems, there’s no perfect choice.
I strongly support greater densities in urban environments like Vancouver understanding the loss of vegetation/trees on those sites (and myriad of other costs) is part of the equation IF, and a big IF, it means curbed sprawl in other municipalities and acquired park space in cities taking the density, like Vancouver.
I would rather redevelop Vancouver than develop green fields in the suburbs. Unfortunately, it seems to be the wild west in a lot of suburbs, but once the urban containment boundary is full, we’ll see what happens. Either we get our act together and plan appropriately, or it’s going to be even wilder as the ALR gets taken out.
22 spartikus // Apr 14, 2014 at 4:02 pm
I have met some of those lurkers, spart, and I can assure you they are fully intelligent and have the capacity to think critically.
Precisely.
23 jenables // Apr 14, 2014 at 4:06 pm
I don’t think you understand it’s not one or the other. These people aren’t going to stop at any point, unless they aren’t making money. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the alr if they can see dollar signs. These plants are actively cleaning your air, isn’t all this being done in the name of that? And less effectively?
24 boohoo // Apr 14, 2014 at 4:09 pm
@173
Isn’t all what being done in the name of clean air? I don’t know where you’re going with this…
25 jenables // Apr 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm
Sorry, I thought one of the reasons people hate sprawl was because it forces people to drive, emitting more ghgs, which is in turn stored by plants, particularly trees… who do you the favour of removing all kinds of toxins, by the way.
I strongly support greater densities in urban environments like Vancouver understanding the loss of vegetation/trees on those sites (and myriad of other costs) is part of the equation IF, and a big IF, it means curbed sprawl in other municipalities and acquired park space in cities taking the density, like Vancouver.
Acquired park space? Don’t tell me you think a couple of cement planters on a roof is remotely close to grass, soil, trees and other plants at ground level. If you think that grass serves no function you ought to think a little harder. I don’t support this concrete jungle is better for everyone nonsense. This coming from someone in a house themselves. Again, (and it would be great if you could address this point) if it was so wonderful and benevolent why do these developers pay millions of dollars in what are essentially bribes to politicians?
26 boohoo // Apr 15, 2014 at 7:18 am
@175
It’s fascinating to wonder how you can interpret my comment about wanting more park space as equaling that I think grass serves no purpose and that I equate roof top planters as park. Truly, I have no idea how you do that.
As to your ‘point’, if what was so wonderful?
27 jenables // Apr 16, 2014 at 2:07 am
Well right now it seems we are LOSING park space, unless you consider the rooftop park to be a real park. your comment seemed to say acquiring park space was part of taking on density.
Does that make sense?
If all these towers and density and plans that make a few people very wealthy were good for us and didn’t have a negative impact on quality of life, then why would they need to funnel cash to political parties? You’d think we’d be thanking them.
28 Roger Kemble // Apr 16, 2014 at 7:38 am
“Green Party SUX
Rinse, repeat.
Rinse, repeat.
Precisely. ”
Oh, spartikus, and before you let the cat out do up your flies!
29 boohoo // Apr 16, 2014 at 8:49 am
@177
No, you’re reading into my comments all this bs you bring with you.
I said, very clearly, I support density if new parkland is acquired. New parkland.
That doesn’t mean I don’t like grass, that doesn’t mean I support roof top planters as park, that doesn’t mean all this all bs you’re assuming.
If you’re going to discuss this, at least have the common courtesy to try to understand what I’m saying (or ask) rather than make these wildly inaccurate and extremely puzzling assumptions.
30 jenables // Apr 16, 2014 at 9:14 am
Lol! So boohoo, you agree that a rooftop park is not a park at all, then? We’ve taken on a lot of density in the last few decades, yet there seems to be less money than ever to maintain the parks, and I haven’t seen any new ones around here so it’s odd you would correlate increased density with increased parks in the first place. But I am glad to see you agree that Oakridge rooftops are not parks.
31 boohoo // Apr 16, 2014 at 9:33 am
@180
If you could please find evidence of me ever saying I thought that a roof top park was a park in the first place, that’d be great.
Actually, let me do that for you.
boohoo // Mar 16, 2014 at 9:11 am
“I’m on board with Oakridge except for the park, a roof top is not a park especially with the time conditions–the city should have learned from Concord….”
So you got me?
32 jenables // Apr 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Thanks for clarifying that. Now I’m just wondering where the increased density = acquired park land correlation is from, if you don’t mind, educate me 🙂
33 Kenji // Apr 16, 2014 at 4:52 pm
Just dropping back in to say how much I am enjoying reading intelligent discussions like MB’s and Chatterjay’s and…well, the good ones.
For a few minutes, I feel that I almost understand the market, the tradeoffs between landlife and sprawl containment, the tension between the roles of an elected official as a mirror of, and leader of, her constituents….
34 MB // Apr 18, 2014 at 6:12 pm
Dr Frank 159
At no point did I say that investors do not pressure urban growth. Of course they do. But their financial energy can be directed, harnessed, molded and influenced with the appropriate set of policies. Unfortunately, they also donate to policy makers and therein buy policy (or the abence thereof), and therein lies one of our biggest problems, money in politics. Remove it and much will change.
This is the challenge for all parties, but especially the pro-development parties in municipal politics (there are more than one). Having said that even COPE needs money, and actively seeks funds from individuals and organizations who want to also influence policy according to their ideology and world view.
You are completely wrong to cavalierly dismiss demographics. About 500,000 people moved to the Metro in the last dozen or so years, but the urban land base has NOT grown larger. Another million are expected to arrive over the next couple of decades.
I believe you are conflating the necessary investments hundreds of thousands of people need to make to obtain shelter in their preferred neighbourhoods with overseas real estate investment class. Several recent large developments (Telus Garden, Marine Gateway…) saw the vast majority of buyers were local. Very few were from overseas.
You so ignored my observation that there is a massive land base relatively untouched by development pressure: the oceans of single lots out there. You are focussed on parcels near rapid transit stations and strips on arterials where the pressures are highest to maximize height and density. The only way in my view to relieve some of that pressure is to acheive what both of us will likely agree is an ideal: the uniform urbanism of low-rise Chelsea or mid-rise Copenhagen on land currently occupied by 33, 50, 60 and 66-foot platting.
You and Adriane Carr are pretentious enough to claim to be speaking for the “majority” in our neighbourhoods by merely opposing tower development. Please, can you and she define what you offer as an alternative? You are half way there; all you need to do is admit that you will have to rezone beyond the existing zoning bylaws off arterials and a ways away from transit stations.
I predict that will test your mettle near the point of breaking.
35 Dr. Frankentower // Apr 20, 2014 at 6:36 am
MB, we appear to be discussing this in a parallel (political?) universe where assassination is legal. But we both know the answers to the questions we are asking. And we agree on quite a few of them.
36 MB // Apr 20, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Doc, god’s in the details.
37 Roger Kemble // Apr 21, 2014 at 12:23 pm
“Several recent large developments (Telus Garden, Marine Gateway…) saw the vast majority of buyers were local.” I thinq not MB @ #184!
Was it not just last fall one realtor was exposed for lining up a couple of its young office staff as to masquerade as prospective buyers at Marine Gateway.
I was by Telus Gardens just yesterday. It is barely out of the ground. Far too early for responsible, sentient home owners to commit their life savings.
Of course MB, as you know so well in your business, there are lookie-loos who talk-the-talk and run like hell the other way when sign on approaches.
I remember viewing the line-ups for Marine Gateway: almost exclusively Oriental youngsters dressed in their turf hats and bottom boots: they were there to pick up a bit of pocket money you guys throw their way to make a show.
MG, TG and all the rest of the empty rock faces will sit sentinel . . . amen and good riddance . . . as the end of an era approaches!
38 MB // Apr 21, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Roger, I can’t place a link here from my phone. But a quick Google search for “Telus Garden investors” brought up an article by Mme. Bula in the G&M dated Sept 6th 2012 that stated the sales registry indicated the majority of buyers and investors were local. Many were investors buying for their kids but intended to rent out the units until the kids were old enough. Proximity to transit was a key factor in selling out so fast in TG. Also, 150 units were sold to Telus employees. The stats for Marine Gateway were similar. Projects further afield and not as close to rapid transit were not as successful.
You imply I am in real estate. No way. I just have an interest in urbansim.