Proposed High-rise in Mount Pleasant
Timeline on Events, Things we’ve learned, Opinions and Facts, and Taking Action…
Timeline on Events
Past Events
- Initial rezoning application (July 2010) [includes link to City of Vancouver rezoning website]
- Community consultation, Salt Building (March 20, 2011)
- Second community consultation, Heritage Hall (April 12th, 2011)
- Citizens Forum, St. Patricks Hall (April 27th, 2011)
- RAMP is formed (May 3rd, 2011)
- Reproposal submited to city planning (June 3rd, 2011)
- RAMP holds a Town Hall meeting (June 29th, 2011)
- Vancouver Civic Election – Ask the Council Candidates: Whats their plan for your neighbourhood? – Heritage Hall (Oct 26th, 2011)
- The City and Rize hold a 3rd open house (Jan 17th, 2012)
Future Events
- Public Hearing at City Hall (April 4th 6pm – reconvened, begun on Feb 27th, 2012, 7:30pm – This is where you get to have your say infront of City Council)
Things we’ve learned, Opinions and Facts
- Density done well… not so well!
Explains why this form of density is not appropriate for the location that the developer is trying to rezone. RAMP is for density done well. (Within the scale and character of the neighbourhood) - Traffic congestion and bike lane impact
RAMP has studied the Traffic Report by Bunt and Associates (paid for by Rize). If the numbers in this report are accurate we may have a huge traffic problem on our hands. We provide a summary of the report numbers as well as diagrams showing how traffic will flow in and out of the building. - STIR, what it is and why it isn’t a good idea
RAMP has compiled some information on STIR (Short-Term Incentives for Rental Housing). We don’t think that it helps affordability, it also allows developers such as Rize to propose large developments like the one being proposed. - Deconstructing STIR: Vancouver’s Tax-Cuts-for-Developers Housing StrategyA great article written by Sean Antrim for The Mainlander. Thanks for letting us put it up.
- PAPER: Debunking the High-Rise Myth in Vancouver
Please share these papers with anyone you think might be interested - PAPER: Relaxing Upzoning Restrictions to Increase (or Decrease?) Livability Costs in our City: Rethinking the Economics relationship of Supply and Demand and Reassessing the Driving Force behind Gentrification
Please share these papers with anyone you think might be interested
Taking Action…
Two very important things you must do to be heard by City Council
- Write to all the councilors.
Don’t wait, it can be a one line email or an epic. But let them know what you think!… A full councillor email list can be found on our take action page. If they vote as a block they often times decide how they will vote before the hearing. - Sign up to talk at the public hearing.
The Public Hearing has been scheduled to start on Feb 27th, 2012 at 7:30pm. Please check back regularly for more information or “like” us on facebook (Information for how to sign up and how to speak at city hall is on the Public Hearing Set Page)
More info:
-
Take Action
Taking action -
Speaking at a public hearing
All you need to know about signing up, where to go, what to say, how to say it (see the How to speak at a public hearing section).
Other Sites
Other communities around Vancouver are dealing with the issue of developers trying to get extreme density and height. A great site to get you up to speed fast is:
[NOTE: This page is subject to change without notice as we gather new information and/or facts.]
Had an informative and interesting time at this meeting. It was nice to see so many people caring about their community and being willing and able to do the things that are necessary to keep it that way.
For my part,so far, I’ve emailed the mayor.separately from the councilors. Got two automatic replies and two emails saying that they would bear in mind what is being said in my letter against re-zoning.
Just wanted to let the people that think that I are against highrises to know that I am all for highrises as long as they are built where all the other highrises are in the core. Short term financial gain for the long time physical pain which would result as more pollution and infrastructure is added to the mix. The sustainability of neighbourhoods of highrises is in question if they are all over the place and consuming energy galore. Prestigious living styles reaping huge profits for developers and speculators over the people’s right to safe, clean and secure communities never works in the people’s interest..
Just to be fair, I feel that I have been misled, not in a bad way, but it reflects on what is going on in the community which could have detrimental effects on any outcome of any of the city hall zoning meetings.
While standing at Broadway and Kingsway, I looked up and saw a building that was at least ten stories high. The focus of our attempt to get a lower height allowance that would be in line with the community’s intentions for height restrictions. There are already buildings that surpass that level but in all fairness the thin edge of the wedge is being driven deeper into the destruction of communities.
Developers depend on being able to exploit communities and neighbourhoods incrementally.
They don’t care who is in power because they will be forcing the issue of growth by putting up the money to keep it on the Municipal city hall agenda.
It becomes so blase and taken for granted as being nothing out of the ordinary so as to get rubber stamped in the name of progress.
The present height restriction is perfect for this community and the taller buildings should take into account the use of building high where it is not on the top of the high points in the geographical area known as Mount Pleasant.
We are not trying to stop people from moving into the community, We are looking that the proper size buildings, fitting in with the heritage aspects of the community, are built by which.we will welcome many more people to our community.
Knowing that the rule has already been broken it is up to the community to make that the exception rather than the rule.
“There are already buildings that surpass that level but in all fairness the thin edge of the wedge is being driven deeper into the destruction of communities.”
That seems a little dramatic. The West End has no issues maintaining a community while accommodating highrises – Mount Pleasant is resilient enough to easily do the same.
“The sustainability of neighbourhoods of highrises is in question if they are all over the place and consuming energy galore.”
This really isn’t convincing. Towers allow many more people to live near amenities, public transit and work, reducing energy use overall – how else would you explain NYC’s extremely low energy use per capita? We should be moving closer to that ideal instead of limiting density due to largely aesthetic concerns.
The west end is built on high rises and they can keep them. If you want high rises then put them where there are others that can share the amenities. In New York City the buildings are huge but it is not the high rise that makes the city. It is the four, five, six story buildings that are built to accommodate people as has been suggested by many people, that makes the city. Going high is just an excuse for bigger profits by buying cheap land, destroying communities and buying more cheap land where and when parts of the community’s population feel their lifestyles are no longer viable or tenable.
reilly…i’m just wondering if you actually live in mt. pleasant?
“Going high is just an excuse for bigger profits”
Sure. It also provides more housing units close to transit and other amenities – something we should be encouraging in Vancouver.
And again, I don’t know why you think that the community will be destroyed by highrises – that certainly isn’t the case in the West End or the dense Asian cities I’ve lived in. My community isn’t based on buildings being aesthetically homogeneous.
“reilly…i’m just wondering if you actually live in mt. pleasant?”
I do, and to I’d be willing to meet for coffee if anyone would like to discuss a counter-RAMP campaign for more housing and urban density in Vancouver. reilly.p.wood@gmail.com
See my comment to you on Take Action
If you wanted to discuss this issue with your community, then why didn’t you speak up at the “Highrises in Mount Pleasant?” Town Hall meeting that was held by RAMP? Or didn’t you to attend?
Based on RAMP’s website, I didn’t think that attending would be a good use of my time. I did not expect much in the way of quality discourse from a one-issue organization that values architectural homogeneity over providing new transit-accessible housing.
I’m done here for a while, but remember: every housing unit you stop is another wealthy buyer or renter still on the housing market (bidding up the price of other housing), another person forced out to the car-dependent suburbs, and one less person contributing to the tax base of Vancouver. Is that really worth it? The design, the retail configuration, the parking – all of these can be adjusted without limiting the height and number of units.
“Towers allow many more people to live near amenities, public transit and work, reducing energy use overall”
The Greater Vancouver rapid transit plan allows for density to be spread across the region, not concentrated.in south Vancouver, and there are “amenities” everywhere.
“how else would you explain NYC’s extremely low energy use per capita?”
It is certainly not due to high-rises, above 6 storeys high-rises are inefficient.
“We should be moving closer to that ideal instead of limiting density due to largely aesthetic concerns.”
Density is not an aesthetic concern.It relates to traffic and the livability of a neighbourhood.Height is is an aesthetic concern, but an important one relating to character, views, and shaows.
Could we create another West End here? Sure, Do we want to? NO!
People are all for the density but it has to be density based on land use as opposed to the height of the building. That height increases density is all well and good but height is not a prerequisite to density. Buildings along the lines of 5 or 6 floors can accommodate a lot of people if the apartments are to be 400 or 500 square feet. as are the typical high rise condominiums for sale today, then up is not necessarily the way to go. If we had the population of Hong Kong with the land limitations then we would go high but we don’t and we aren’t.
Share the amenities? If these buildings were built along the mass transportation lines, as they should be, it would be OK. To use this ruse to engender some form of people wanting to build high rises is, at best, a specious argument. Misleading and misrepresenting what people want and need is not the way to go.
Esthetics are in the eyes of the developers that want to make extra profits. Building simple is building right. The entire issue revolves around allowing more people into the community without destroying its character. This can be done easily with the present zoning. It is the builders and not the residents that are at fault.
Building where the other high rise structures are is the best way to not only share the transit amenities but to also reduce traffic that would come with high rises. High rises built outside that venue would only add to the pollution and traffic woes of the communities in which they are inserted.
“If these buildings were built along the mass transportation lines, as they should be, it would be OK. ”
This is nearly as close as you can possibly get to transit. It’s a 7 minute walk to Broadway-City Hall and Main St-Science World stations, next to 4 bus lines, and the Skytrain extension down Broadway is planned for sometime in the next 10 years.
If you’re looking for a location with better transit service, you’re not going to find many. I live 2 blocks from the proposed tower and this is by far the best location for transit I’ve found in Vancouver.
Hi again Reilly. I don’t really wish to get caught up in this back and forth, but currently Main street is NOT near rapid transit. People aren’t going to walk to Cambie nor Terminal in the rain at 6am to catch rapid transit somewhere else. They will use their cars instead, especially since the number of car stalls planned for the building exceeds the minimum requirement (why do this if people are expected to walk, bike and bus everywhere? this isn’t green). IF the corner of Main and Broadway already had a rapid transit going east-west vs the already overstuffed 99 bus (where will we put all those extra people? transit can’t keep up as it is! we need infrastructure first!) then that may be another story. Burnaby seems to be doing well with its high-rises very close to already established and well used rapid transit routes as well as other long-established amenities (eg Brentwood Mall). Also, the local sidewalks and bike routes (eg 10th ave) as they currently stand are definitely not set up for so many more people to be walking and biking them, especially with the increased residential and loading traffic that would be moving in and out of the proposed building. No, cars will definitely be used despite looming traffic problems (the building is located between three main arteries that travel between downtown and the suburbs) and we will all realize too late why the building was built so tall: for profit and profit only. This is solely my point of view and only at this particular point in time and in this particular instance. I am not against developers on the whole and I do not mean to misrepresent anyone else or hurt anyone’s reputation through this comment. I just mean to set some of your misunderstandings straight. We may actually align on some ideas for urban planning. The best way is to work out ideas together vs bickering, which is something I personally hope will happen between community and developer in the instance of the proposed tower at Kingsway and Broadway. Concern for our community’s future isn’t NIMBYism, it’s just concern for the future of the community we decided to invest in when we moved here. Thanks and I sincerely hope to see you at the upcoming meeting Oct 26 (please see RAMP main page for more info).
The point is, convenient access to rapid transit makes concentrating massive amounts of extra density and height here unecessary.
Please be advised of the City’s next controlled-show workshop on fitting into developers’ plans for Mt Pleasant:
…a public information session and discussion with City staff regarding current and up-coming programs and projects within and nearby the Mount Pleasant community. The event is scheduled for:
When: Thursday, October 27, 2011
6:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Where: Native Education College
285 East 5th Avenue (at Scotia St.)
The topics for discussion include:
proposed changes to Mount Pleasant’s I-1 (industrial) zoning for the purpose of increasing jobs, largely affecting office and service uses
planning for the ‘Eastern Core’ (including the False Creek Flats and potential changes to the Georgia and Dunsmuir Street Viaducts), and
creating a new structure plan (roads, parcels, open space, and development phasing) for the Great Northern Way Campus (lying to the north of 1st Ave. and Great Northern Way between Scotia and Fraser Sts.).
At this meeting, the first hour (6:00 to 7:00 PM) will be conducted in an “open house” format, allowing for individual discussions with City staff. There will be explanatory display panels for each of the projects/programs listed above. This will be followed by a brief update/overview on the implementation of the Mount Pleasant Community Plan, followed by presentations/group discussions about those projects in ‘break-out rooms’.
Why didn’t they hold it in some other out of the way place like North Van? They’ll do anything to thwart the needs of the citizens. Are these the city planners that are behind this?
My name is Allison Weiss; I am the Circulation Coordinator for NRU – Vancouver Edition. In this week’s edition you are mentioned in an article on the Rize project. I would like to send it to you at your earliest convenience. If you could provide me with an email address, I will send it immediately.
Sincerely,
Allison Weiss
Circulation
allisonw@nrupublishing.com
There’s a cleaning in the offing. Notice that today the CBC radio is questioning the use and need of high rises because the young adult population is moving to the suburbs because they can’t and won’[t pay the exorbitant prices that are being bandied about by the developers. They are looking to see what Vancouverites want in the way of affordable housing of the right size for families to live comfortably in the area. Also in the news is Meggs talking about getting rid of the overhead transportation so that they can put development of Green Space and housing into the mix. This would join the disjointed communities that are present in the region now. Lying piece of shit.