In case you couldn’t follow everything Coun. Raymond Louie just said in moving approval of Oakridge, he added these conditions:
THAT staff ensure there is space set aside within the kitchen of the community centre for the exclusive use of seniors and that a joint use agreement between the seniors and the Park Board is in place to ensure certainty of access for seniors to community centre facilities.THAT staff be directed to work with SUCCESS and use resources and relationships specific to both the City and SUCCESS to identify locations for the provision of additional social services to benefit residents in the Oakridge area.THAT staff continue to engage with Vancouver Coastal Health, TransLink and Vancouver School Board in an ongoing effort to ensure their plans take into account population growth anticipated in the Oakridge development.THAT staff ensure an enhanced construction schedule and mitigation plan is provided to address concerns of seniors and location residents prior to the first Development Permit.THAT staff examine measures to maximize occupancy of residential units in Oakridge and report back on a regular basis on the success of the measures.THAT both the City and the applicant provide a single point of contact to answer questions from the local community and seniors regarding construction, phasing, occupancy, and community amenities.
49 responses so far ↓
1 brilliant // Mar 14, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Well thank heavens Louie is focused on the big picture, like kitchen space. Who cares about trivialities like the effect of an out of scale project like this on the neighbourhood.
How are they going to monitor or enforce ocupancy of market units? knock, knock, anybody home. To coin a phrase: Ding dong, Louie calling.
2 Bill Lee // Mar 14, 2014 at 3:58 pm
“[head icon] Click here to Reply or Forward”
What’s that in the FrancesBula.com blog? A new feature, or a cut and paste fault?
3 Bill Lee // Mar 14, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Glaah!
And Olympia Washington, the states’ capitol, is fighting a 7 storey tower.
And when</was this?
Austin, Ian. The Province [Vancouver, B.C] 07 June 1989:
And again, why was the oversized planning pulled back 6 years ago?
4 Silly Season // Mar 14, 2014 at 6:18 pm
I think I shall call these promises —as inconseqential as some as some of them appear to be, as per @brilliant’s note and as grandiose as to involve other ‘agencies’ with their own funding problems—
‘Memories of Canada Line’. 😉
5 tedeastside // Mar 14, 2014 at 8:03 pm
vancouver has no economic base to speak of, so people are more likely to chase RE fortunes,
this erodes the economy even further,
vancouverites need to wean themselves off land speculation to develop a real economy
6 teririch // Mar 14, 2014 at 8:49 pm
Looking forward to seeing the media coverage of ‘persons’ lining up outside the sales office to buy their you know…. 6 units.
7 teririch // Mar 14, 2014 at 8:51 pm
So by Louie instructing city staff to work with SUCCESS – I am taking it the sales will be targeting primarily the Asian market? (again)
8 victor // Mar 14, 2014 at 10:29 pm
Such a creepy and patronising response to the Asian community.
Time for many of these VV Cllrs to retire. Getting out of control with their spin… even to themselves.
9 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 14, 2014 at 11:07 pm
The Towerization of Oakridge is a very big sign that our city is going in the wrong direction. The calculus here is maximize profits for large entities in the private sector and—more or less—to hell with everything else. The scene is now set for the next several municipal elections to see how long this mind set holds up.
There are two obvious places where the rubber is not meeting the road. A Council that already has perhaps almost a dozen court actions either pending or threatened against it (remember the Rize), may find trouble navigating either of these two:
One, from a pedestrian perspective, it is obvious that what the press has branded a Mini-City requires more than a rezoning. An Official Development Plan (ODP) with all the attendant analysis would seem like a minimum starting point.
Second, there is the issue of the park promised long ago but never delivered. It also stands to reason that as the project grows and grows the park should also increase, perhaps in geometric rather than linear proportions. BTW if the park is not rooted in the good earth, then it is not a park. So, the proposal to put the park on the roof should be treated by the citizenry with the same disdain as the prospect of 14 towers and 2x more shopping.
I wrote in more detail about this over a year ago and heard nothing at the Public Hearing to change my views.
http://wp.me/p1yj4U-bo
10 Don D // Mar 15, 2014 at 1:21 am
Good luck with ever seeing that park. Still waiting for Creekside 2-1/2 decades on. Developers control this city, full stop.
11 Roger Kemble // Mar 15, 2014 at 2:47 am
The Byker redevelopment 1973-8 . . .
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbc-drawing.cgi/Byker_Redevelopment.html/Byker_Redev_Site_Plan.jpg
. . . Newcastle UK is a large development of a similar nature, less the frantic commercialism, but with one very important planning feature, The Byker Wall, that distinguishes it from Oakridge.
The Byker Wall, a lineal multi-residential building, shields its community from a busy traffic artery to the north while nestling it in an environmental wrap around from inclement northern exposure.
The Byker development demonstrates a sophisticated approach as opposed to the Kaplunk-take-the-money-and-run unsophisticated development at Oakridge!
Byker is a plan.
Oakridge is a promotional play configured to sell a gullible council, entice an already debt saturated public, with empty gestures such as an elevated garden surrounded by four chunks of concrete, ergo bereft of sunlight, featuring, among other baubles, a stagnant pond that will inevitably be defiled with used condoms ejected by those liberated souls on satisfying their clandestine and shady thing after having done it on the mall!
Two points for council to consider on making its final decision:
1. The second law of thermodynamics states nothing is sustainable . . .
and . . .
2. Ugly buildings are built by and for ugly people!
12 rph // Mar 15, 2014 at 7:37 am
“measures to maximize occupancy of residential units”
What does that even mean?
13 Chris // Mar 15, 2014 at 8:20 am
There is nothing “green” about this project! I never knew that overbuilt condo towers that warehouses people was part of the greenest city strategy. What a bunch of nonsense but the only people to blame for this, bike lanes, and other projects that only benefit developers are the voters themselves. Without any viable opposition any time soon, be prepared for more!
14 brilliant // Mar 15, 2014 at 8:52 am
@Victor 8- Yup. Though I would have thought the other Chinese-Canadian councillor would have been the designated panderer in this case. Pop quiz, without searching it, who even remembers his name?
15 spartikus // Mar 15, 2014 at 9:52 am
vancouverites need to wean themselves off land speculation to develop a real economy
Great!
What’s a “real economy”?
Factories?
And other than waving a magic wand, how does a municipal government do that? Without the relying on the assistance of other levels of government, I mean.
16 Roger Kemble // Mar 15, 2014 at 10:12 am
“What’s a “real economy”?
Factories?” YES spartikus @ #15partially!
I was here when lumber was milled and shipped. I was here when canning was big time! I was here when farming, especially dairy, up the Valley, was alive and well!
In my early youth I could look north and see the sky alight with the glow of massive furnaces at the great Skinning Grove smelter in North Yorkshire: smelting iron ore out of the Cleveland Hills ready to make into massive ocean going ships built in Middleborough-on-Tees all within a radius of thirty miles.
I knew the coal miners who made the trains run on time!
A town run by and for real estate shysters, busily floggin’ your kids heritage off shore, has a short shelf life Spartikus!
17 Richard // Mar 15, 2014 at 11:05 am
An excellent column by Pete McMartin on Oakridge and the need to create more efficient walking oriented communities.
http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=9620193
18 Art // Mar 15, 2014 at 11:20 am
I want a rail line following 41st from UBC to Burnaby.
19 Bill Lee // Mar 15, 2014 at 12:05 pm
@Art // Mar 15, 2014 at 11:20 am #18
No, we want a steam train to UBC along the central, easy-to-cut-and-cover central boulevard of King Edward (25th Avenue) from the Cambie station.
It’s always been reserved for a tram line hasn’t it?
20 Bill Lee // Mar 15, 2014 at 12:05 pm
Meanwhile in the Soviet of Burnaby, ….
21 rph // Mar 15, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Thanks Richard for the link. Interesting to note though (and someone correct me if I am wrong) that although McMartin lives in Tsawwassen, he has yet to write a column singing the praises of the proposed density development on the Spetifore/Southland lands there.
22 Roger Kemble // Mar 15, 2014 at 12:21 pm
I don’t understand that article Richard @#17 other than that McMartin is an apologist for bad design!
I cited an example of good design at about the same scale in 11: the Byker plan.
There are so many failures in the current Oakridge plan where to start?
For instance the architect, capitulating to the developer’s reluctance to provide promised open space, has designed a virtually inaccessible elevated park surrounded by towers that block the Sun.
I am not opposed to towers! I am not opposed to density!
I am opposed to careless design: a design that purports to be people sensitive but in fact is driven by the developer’s bottom line and only the bottom line.
All the failures in this plan are evident as comparing it to the Byker plan makes adamantly clear to anyone who wants to see.
McMartin is an apologist for a developer/realtor/supposed professional architect exceeding their civic mandate and a council that bandies green around like it was cheap candy.
23 Roger Kemble // Mar 15, 2014 at 12:34 pm
PS As I have mentioned on previous posts to this blog Vancouver has been in a state of population stagnation since 2006 and Metro is not far behind.
Who will occupy all this frantic development?
All well and good to be positive and cheerie but are we about to replicate a China Syndrome: a fully built up empty city!
24 Randy Chatterjee // Mar 15, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Thanks, rph (12) for interjecting this important line of discussion.
Four words to describe Councillor Louie’s Oakridge CD-1 rezoning “conditions:” ludicrous, feckless, unenforceable, and pandering.
Absolutely nothing Raymond Louie “stipulated” is clear, complete, or within the authority or capacity of the city to regulate. Also, as there are no stated penalties, these “conditions” will simply be ignored without recourse or any means of redress.
As we all know, ignored standards, guidelines, rules and even bylaws are the norm in Vancouver, and especially in Council itself.
To be specific:
1) “space set aside within the kitchen of the community centre for the exclusive use of seniors” – So, one island, one counter in the kitchen, or some square footage of floor area will have a “no non-seniors” sign posted upon it? Another community group will reserve the space and not be able to use a part of the kitchen? Maybe a shelf of the fridge will be “for seniors only”?
2) “joint use agreements between seniors and the Parks Board” – So does this mean school groups, single parents, LGBTQ, or others should have a similar agreement, be relegated to second-class status, or be denied use altogether? Discrimination! And what would stop the Parks Board from simply cancelling any agreement they sign anyway. It’s not like that doesn’t happen!
3) “staff be directed to work with SUCCESS” – Could you please be more specific what “work with” means, Raymond? And why is the City singling out one program or service provider to the exclusion of any or all others? Favouritism? (see teririch 7)
4) “continue to engage with Vancouver Coastal Health, TransLink and Vancouver School Board” – Staff “enage” with the neighbourhoods as well, and we know what THAT looks like! Again, this is meaningless and unenforceable language. This is also insufficient to comply with the Vancouver Charter under Section 562.1.
5) “enhanced construction schedule” – What does Council want “enhanced”? The noise level? The disruption? Does Councillor Louie expect Westbank, BEFORE issuance of the Development Permit, even to have a construction schedule at all? Again, there is no specificity and nothing is enforceable. In fact this “condition” is worse than utterly meaningless; it is misleading.
6) “examine measures to maximize occupancy” – Staff have, and herein have been given, no authority or tools to investigate or to enforce this condition. If Louie had specifically requested buyer permitting, residency requirements, a foreign-owner tax surplus, or a vacancy tax be examined, or laws drawn up to implement either, then maybe we could take this seriously. Again, this is just pander and drivel.
7) “single point of contact” – How about a Call Centre in India?
Such Council resolutions accomplish exactly nothing, tie up City staff in knots, waste huge amounts of time, and invite lawsuits. Our elected lawmakers–especially ones who have served for over a decade–should learn how and why laws are crafted, or simply stay out of the kitchen.
25 Richard // Mar 15, 2014 at 2:32 pm
@rph
The proposed Spetifore/Southland lands development is a totally different case.
– It will pave over and put buildings on green space while Oakridge will add green space on what is now pavement and concrete.
– It is nowhere near rapid transit and will likely be expensive to cost effectively serve with transit.
– There will not be enough people to support much retail meaning people will be forced to drive a lot while Oakridge has tons of retail which the residents can walk to.
The Spetifore/Southland lands development is a perfect example of a very poor location for new homes while Oakridge is a great location for more homes.
26 tedeastside // Mar 15, 2014 at 2:35 pm
a real economy….that would be what SanFrancisco and Seattle have…..vancouver is just rats flipping houses telling themselves its the best place on earth
27 Silly Season // Mar 15, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Sure. Re-make Oakridge.But look at less towers and more low-level multi-family places—replicate some of the 6 + 8 story buildings nearby. Towers are nothing but an excuse for more property tax money.
@Richard #25 Some grass and flowers on a roof does not make it a park, any more than slapping on some paint makes me Princess Kate.
I would hate to be kid bouncing a ball (what dat?!) up there and watch it sail over the guard rail. (Note to self: don’t play ‘fetch’ with the dog up there on the 44th floor…)
28 rph // Mar 15, 2014 at 3:03 pm
Richard, Spetifore/Southlands would be part of the change McMartin mentions as a progression from “wilderness to farmland to suburb to city”.
In time densification in Tsawwassen will merit better public transportation including rapid transit. 500 homes have been built in the Tsawwassen Springs development, and Tsawwassen Shores will add almost 2000 more. The Southlands Development is for about 950 homes.
And then there are the two large retail complexes under construction.
The new South Fraser Perimeter Road means better connection times eastward, and replacing the Massey tunnel with an 8-10 lane bridge, imo, will blast this area right open for development.
And of course we have a Provincial government who has already said they wish to tinker with the ALR, so there is no safe bet for ongoing preservation.
Anyways my point was that McMartin has been espousing development and densification in Oakridge as a good thing, and I wondered why he has been shy about writing about the situation in his back yard.
29 Jay // Mar 15, 2014 at 3:13 pm
I’m wondering what makes towers more attractive to the city as far as property tax goes. Or is it more to do with density bonus money/amenities? As far as property taxes go, wouldn’t row-houses and townhouses bring in more revenue for the city considering these are more valuable properties?
30 Richard // Mar 15, 2014 at 3:20 pm
@Silly
Bulk 6-8 floor buildings would shade the green space most of the year while the narrow towers are spaced far enough apart to ensure that there will be sun on part of the area. I suggest wondering around the city and actually observing the impact of different kinds of buildings. Typically walls of shorter building shade streets much more than towers spaced further apart given the same number of units.
31 Richard // Mar 15, 2014 at 3:27 pm
@rph
Seems like you are misreading Pete’s piece. It seems clear that he is isn’t keen on converting rural or farm land to housing.
The proposed developments in Delta are spread apart and will not effectively support walking or transit as planned. They would have to be redeveloped at some point to get the densities required and we know how difficult that is.
The better strategy for Delta would be to limit development to areas that are already developed.
32 Terry M // Mar 15, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Spartikus…
For the last few posts, including this one, you’ve been spinning and spinning theVisionVancouver’s way. And I wonder why. Did you get a better offerer recently via a vis your present comfortable Library shtick?
RSVP … no rush tho.
Roger 16..
You’re correct Sir. Industry it is. It doesn’t have to be “smelters” you know…
33 Silly Season // Mar 15, 2014 at 5:20 pm
@Richard #30 Come on down to my 8-floor rental in kerrisdale, Richard (44 ys old an maintained beautifully. And best of all–affordable!). Loads of sushine with space between the buildings. And I grew up in Oakridge—pretty familiar with all the apartments along Tisdall, 45th Avenue. In fact, yearned for more trees there! And that was 35 years ago…
In fact I know areas like Yaletown very well—and I know many architects who decry the loss of light and casting of vast shadows down there.
And who have cautioned against replicating that sory experience all around the town.
34 Silly Season // Mar 15, 2014 at 7:19 pm
Ummm…gee.
That ’44 yrs old and beautifully maintained. And best of all—affordable!’ line was about my building, not me.
😉
35 Silly Season // Mar 15, 2014 at 7:20 pm
…although it could be. Somewhat.
🙂
36 Chris Keam // Mar 15, 2014 at 7:21 pm
@Terry M
So weak. Unless you are willing to put your real name on a post, you have no business questioning the motives of others or their integrity. That’s a chump move. Don’t be a chump.
37 Richard // Mar 15, 2014 at 8:15 pm
@Silly
Yes, the key is space between the buildings or at least 1 to three floor buildings separating taller buildings.
Once buildings get over 4 floors, they will shade the other side of a street or anything else nearby for much of the year. Additional floors beyond that don’t have much addition shading impact as the shadow on a paticular spot only lasts for a few minutes a day.
Worthwhile getting some blocks or something and a flashlight to help understand shadowing.
38 Silly Season // Mar 15, 2014 at 9:14 pm
@Richard,
Well, I don’t have blocks right now but I’m pretty sure the 6-8 floor buildings around me don’t pitch us into darkness atany time of the year—even winter, when the sun is sitting lower.
However, I can’t vouch for clumped, 44 storey buildings.
39 Lewis N. Villegas // Mar 15, 2014 at 10:32 pm
The Oakridge town centre redevelopment is a prime example. City planners see it in terms of maximizing the potential of the Canada Line’s rapid transit and, by creating a large resident population within walking distance of all the amenities the redevelopment will offer, of creating a more environmentally efficient place…. getting people out of their cars, it has the potential to become a truer neighbourhood than the neighbourhoods surrounding it.”
Pete McMartin, The Vancouver Sun (see #17)
Well, here is one very veteran reporter that clearly doesn’t know what he is reporting about and doesn’t care to do the research to inform himself. To whit:
(1) Maxing Canada Line
Statistics show no correlation between adding density at the transit stop and increased transit use. Most of these folks, should they ever be at home, will be driving.
(2) Creating a large resident population within walking distance of all the amenities the redevelopment will offer…
Caged consumers. Urbanism doesn’t work that way, Pete. The Oakridge Centre—now or then—is not designed to be a self-sufficient village. Residents on the site will be driving out of Oakridge to find all the things Oakridge cannot and will not offer.
(3) Creating a more environmentally efficient place…. becom[ing] a truer neighbourhood than the neighbourhoods surrounding it.
Retreaded truth. There is nothing environmentally efficient about towers. Period. They are laggards in energy conservation; passive solar use; and social functioning. Dogs that won’t hunt.
What is a ‘true’ neighbourhood? A place where people band together to fight change, perhaps? Band together to conserve values of community and values of place? Does anyone think that Towerization will result in anything but anonymity?
By invoking ‘the truth in neighbourhoods’ McMartin is showing his cards—he’s lying. He doesn’t know what he is talking about, and he doesn’t care. Full stop.
40 Jay // Mar 16, 2014 at 3:39 am
Lewis, you make it easy for me. There is no correlation between density and transit use? You have got to be kidding me. You’ve given me the confidence to take you on in any debate. RAMP is my first step up the political ladder.
41 IanS // Mar 16, 2014 at 8:04 am
@ Silly Season #30:
“In fact I know areas like Yaletown very well—and I know many architects who decry the loss of light and casting of vast shadows down there.
And who have cautioned against replicating that sory experience all around the town.”
I don’t know many architects, but, in my experience from living in Yaletown for the last decade or so, lack of sunlight or the casting of “vast shadows” isn’t a problem.
42 boohoo // Mar 16, 2014 at 9:11 am
I still have yet to hear an explanation for all the whinging about how towers are community destroying, anonymity breeding hell holes yet when change is proposed in the west end people lose their collective minds.
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….
43 brilliant // Mar 16, 2014 at 10:08 am
i gursss nobod could recall Chonese Ciuncillor #2’s name. ; )
44 Roger Kemble // Mar 16, 2014 at 10:34 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YablrXxFCc
45 Dr. Frankentower // Mar 16, 2014 at 11:50 am
Jay @ 90
“And please don’t give me your 15 – 20% empty condo stat because it is completely false. The average in Vancouver is 7.7%, with the bulk of them being downtown.”
Yes, the city average is 7.7%, which is over 50% higher than normal for cities, and amounts to over 22,000 empty units in Vancouver.
Remember the Globe article we referenced? “Over the last 20 years, the number of empty units equals 35 towers, each 20 storeys high.”
But I thought you actually read the report, Jay, because then you’d know damn well that Andy Yan’s research shows that nearly 25% of units (1 in 4) in Coal Harbour are sitting empty. The reason the bulk of those 20+ thousand empty units in the City are downtown is because that’s where the new Condo Towers have been concentrated… so far.
Tessa @ 95
“the city’s growth RATE is decreasing because the population is increasing. …If 10,000 people move to a city of 100,000, that’s a 10 per cent increase. If the same number moves to a city of 1 million, it’s 1 per cent…. It’s statistics.”
Wow, Tessa, did you really venture out on that limb? Let me save you the 3 minutes it would have taken you to check the, um, statistics:
1986-91: 40,497 more people (+9.4% growth rate)
1996: 43,364 (9%)
2001: 31,663 (6.2%)
2006: 32,370 (5.9%)
2011: 25,461 (4.4%)
The city’s growth rate is less than half what it was 20 years ago because a lot less people are moving here than they were 20 years ago. On average, over 3 thousand less per year – 40% less people than two decades ago. And trending down.
So, remind me again, why are we rushing to ram towers into all our neighbourhoods?
“It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a continuing and large demand for homes in Vancouver proper, a demand that is driving up prices beyond what is affordable.”
Well, yes, Tessa, and as I’ve been patiently trying to explain to Jay, it is investor demand and global capital looking for safe havens, not population demand, that continues to drive new Condo Tower construction in the City. The aggressive policy direction Planning and Council are pushing in our neighbourhoods has nothing at all to do with their hubris about “saving the world.”
As Geller used to say in here: Our Council and Planning Departments have become addicted to the profits from land lift.
Now that Yaletown and Coal Harbour are way overbuilt, they are pursuing condo towers out in our neighbourhoods with a singular, self-destructive drive that is exactly like a junkie looking to score the next hit. Facts be damned. Ignore all the concerns of those around you. Just… make… that… next… big… score… and… everything will be all right.
46 Dr. Frankentower // Mar 16, 2014 at 11:54 am
Sorry — comment is germaine to this debate, but was meant for the G-W thread…
47 Richard // Mar 16, 2014 at 12:04 pm
@Lewis
Seriously? Just what will people not be able to get in Metrotown? Why would people go to the trouble of braving the underground parking and traffic when they can walk and be in and out of the store with their stuff before they would have escaped from the underground parking?
And the stats are pretty clear that people living near rapid transit use it to get to work.
Outside of downtown, transit usage is highest near stations with towers. Specially Joyce, Metrotown and Downtown New West.
http://metrobabel.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/census-data-mapped-for-metro-vancouver/
Statements that just aren’t backed up by common sense or stats do nothing to help make your case for your theories.
48 Richard // Mar 16, 2014 at 12:50 pm
@Dr. F
Or maybe fewer people are moving to Vancouver because they can’t find a place to live.
Even if the number of people wanting to move here is slowing down a bit, at over 25,000 every five years or 5,000+ per year, that is the equivalent of almost one development the size Oakridge per year. And Oakridge will take at least 10 years to build out.
49 rph // Mar 16, 2014 at 2:01 pm
@Richard #48
Or maybe fewer people are moving to Vancouver because they cannot find an affordable place to live. For the average income earner, in Vancouver the mantra is go small or go elsewhere.