Tom Durning and Michael Geller have been debating the Kettle highrise proposal (technically a mid-rise) in Grandview.
.
.
.
Tom Durning:
The No folks are getting aggressive. They recently placed NO signs behind the Kettle building much to the dismay of the residents who were sitting on the grass. As if their lives aren’t difficult enough.
No wonder some of the signs go missing. Bullying the mentally ill. The only way the Kettle can expand it’s over-stretched facilities and get 30 units of desperately needed social housing units is to be part of a ‘tower’ development. The math has to work.
The ‘there goes the neighborhood’ proponents don’t seem to care. Not something you’d expect in or around the ‘Drive’. The Kettle has been there for 40 years.
* * * *
Michael Geller:
While I support public-private partnerships to create supportive housing, and don’t necessarily support the actions of the anti-tower proponents, in this case I too question the appropriateness of a 6.8 FSR project on this site.
In planning terms, this is another example of ‘form following finance’ rather than a building form in accordance with an overall community plan.
It’s also incorrect to suggest that this height and density is required to make the numbers work.
While I have not asked for nor seen the pro-forma, the building height and overall bulk could be reduced if the city wasn’t insisting on top dollar for its site.
If this was a 100 percent condo I am certain the city planners would not consider this an appropriate building form and design for this location.
As an architect and planner I do not believe the inclusion of affordable housing justifies an inappropriate design.
As Brent Toderian has often said, “first we should decide on the appropriate building form and then we can decide on what public benefits are achievable.”
If this proposal was presented to a panel of thoughtful architects and planners, asked to comment from an urban design perspective, I am confident they would conclude the building bulk should be reduced.
* * * *
Tom Durning:
I certainly agree with most of what you say, Michael. I also agree with Patrick Condon on why towers all the time. Who wouldn’t?
However, some are hijacking the process for their own agenda. That is, opposition to density that they think would affect them and their ‘neighborhoods’ under the guise of ‘neighborhood integrity’, ‘good design’, ‘sustainability’
If every project that was ‘controversial’ had to go before a panel ‘of thoughtful (sic) architects and planners’, it would mean a long, drawn out process. Don’t we have an urban design panel at City hall?
Process is often used to stall progress. Reducto ad absurdum, then all development projects should also go the the sagacious bunch you mention. You don’t see a lot of public opposition to some of the towers going up in the downtown area, do you? And I do agree with you that some of them are of great design and innovation.
As far as OCP’s. Michael, puleeezzzz! You know they are a guideline. As a developer I’m sure many times you had to confront the ‘set in stone’ OCPers. Bit of stretch here.
By what right do you or others to see the pro forma of Kettle? Did you let people see yours?
You’re not an elected politician and have no right. You have a column. That’s your power. And, for the most part, I agree with much of what you have to say. It can be used to educated, inform and help people understand the need for change. Bob Ransford tries that effectively, even though he is buried in the Real Estate pages of the Saturday Sun.
It’s no surprise that the most controversial high-rise developments have been the STIR rental projects in the West End, the Brenhill project (off to court again), and now the Kettle project.
There is a society that had been serving those on the east side of Vancouver with mental illness for nearly 40 years gets an offer of land from their next door neighbour, Mr. Astorino, who’s business on the site was no longer viable. He offers the land to the Kettle who he says had been good neighbors for many years. But they couldn’t make it work and tried various methods of fundraising for years. The the city offers them the parking lot in the rear of the site. Then the Kettle makes it work. They get 30 housing units and a 40 percent increase in their operating space which is bursting at the seams. And there goes the neighborhood!
The No Tower Campaihn had nothing to do with putting signs at or near the Kettle’s rest area, and Tom Durning has no evidence to support the lie he wrote about us. It is probably no coincidence that they appreared there the morning after our signs were stolen from Parker Street and elsewhere. They were placed there, no doubt, so that people like Durning could spread that particular lie.
And your proof Jak. Remember your group also plastered signs on city property on Napier and Parker, illegal I believe.
In response to Tom I pointed our that I regularly present my financial proformas to public authorities when I am using financial considerations as the justification for a particular density or building form.
As for this project’s economics, I suggested that the building size could be reduced if the city accepted less for the land. Alternatively, the city could charge full market value for its site, and use $ from its social housing fund to subsidize the supportive units.
I think much-needed mental health facilities should be paid for by the government(s) as part of our social safety net. Perhaps the City should be GIVING that land it owns on the site to the Kettle to provide space for expansion so that the Kettle doesn’t need to be partnering with a for-profit developer who wants to get, according to Daniel Boffo quoted in the Sun last week, “150-200” luxury market condos in exchange for 30 tiny single-person units for people suffering from mental illness. I still say we can keep the Drive under five storeys. The community shouldn’t have to pay the price of expanded mental health facilities by accepting a totally inappropriate tower. I agree with Michael when he says, above, “I do not believe the inclusion of affordable housing justifies an inappropriate design”!
“Perhaps the City should be GIVING that land” If the most recent plebiscite is a reminder cities in BC have very tight budgets and thus we need to take every opportunity to make money if we want Transit for example.
Actually, I think we could have very efficient at-grade transit along Broadway and up to UBC instead of digging a subway line. This would save many millions, some of which could be spent to house people with mental illness all over the city.
People have a right to protest a huge tower development if it is going to affect the neighbourhood. The signs were stolen and obviously used for a photo op (because nobody would do that in the group) to make the NOTOWER group look bad. Don’t kill democracy, too. The NOTOWER group is made up of neighbours some from the surrounding low income apartments that are afraid that a 95 million dollar project would gentrify the neighbourhood, increase traffic on the very corner students cross to school. Where is the shadow study? They are working hard to collect data and spread the word of this tower proposal which until they started – hardly anybody knew about it and were shocked when they realized the size of it. It really is someone else who is bullying the NOTOWER group and it should stop.
And it is the Kettle management themselves who were unclear in talking to their clients about the proposal. I hear that they told their clients that the lawn signs meant NO MENTAL ILLNESS and did not mention the 15 story tower in the parking lot.. The NOVENABLESTOWER always supported the idea of an expanded Kettle. So shame on a bullying management that really is spreading bad ill will between them and the neighbours in what otherwise was a non issue. We will not be blackmailed into a tower that will directly reduce the quality of life for the neighbourhood in many ways. We should work on a solution NOT MUD SLINGING. Thousand of signatures has been signed for NO TOWER. If Boffo needs to build on city property, then get the city to give them another piece of land. That tower is proposed to be so huge it wont just affect the surrounding neighbours, it is the thin edge of the wedge, and will change future development.
@jakking
The evidence is the signs themselves. Yes, this is inductive, thus inconclusive. However, your alternate hypothesis (a kind of low grade false flag style conspiracy) is just silly. It’s far more likely that some grumpy, perhaps young, likely not very considerate people or person took it upon themselves to be a dick.
Oh, and for the record, Tom didn’t say “no campaign”, he said “no folks”. Now, I’m assuming you’ve actually got a collection of people that gather to strategize on how to defeat this dispicably charitable, this horrifically inconsiderate organization that has, for forty years, viciously helped the homeless and other marginalized members of the community – and that is who you mean when you say “no campaign”. That is, as opposed to some random supporter off the street.
On that point, Jakking, you would do well (meaning it would make you a better person) to remember that your efforts have had an effect. That effect is that reactionary assholes (my new-fangled term for NIMBYs) may just agree with you and do things that might get you into trouble. Plus, let’s be honest here – what’s more likely? A charity playing operation mongoose or a bunch of NIMBYs being a tad rude with their lawn signs? But I’m sure you asked everyone in the group then whipped out your ESP-O-TRON and read their minds just to be sure.
Here is a piece of propaganda by one of Jaks pals
https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/no-tower-signs-stolen/
The post modern paradigm we have been living under for the last 40 years says function follows form. Figure out what your cultural biases tell you the building should look like and then stuff the functions inside. If we let form follow function and both the mental-health services and the financing are critical parts of that then let that be the guide.
The existing built form did not respect the neighbourhood context when these buildings were first built. That is to say 300 foot tall trees.
Thanks to Michael Geller for his thoughtful comments. Just a few corrections: The “No folks” referred to would be the No Tower Coalition, a group representing upwards of 2000 local residents. No member of the group has ever handed leaflets or spoken with Kettle clients, not has it placed any signs on city or Kettle property. Yes, three No Tower signs appeared on the corner of Adanac and Commercial near the bus stop. Those were stolen signs placed there by parties unknown. They were removed as soon as we became aware of their presence. The diagram that appears so often in articles about the Boffo tower is misleading. The Adanac Tower (1717 Adanac Street) is 12 storeys, not 14, and the proposed Boffo tower seems to vary from 12 to 20 storeys. Daniel Boffo has stated publicly that the building could not be built for under 15 storeys. In fact, fitting 150 to 200 luxury condos into a 12-15 storey building on the proposed site would be quite a feat. The No Tower Coalition has been very clear, since the beginning, that opposition was to the tower only. The Kettle and its operations are fully supported. It is unfortunate that the Kettle Society seems to have gotten into bed with a for-profit developer who is using them as justification for a massive development.
Tom Durrie
Tom Durrie it’s not just the Tower some people in your group have a problem with. One of your members was at a citizen assembly table with 10 other people present and said, ” this project won’t work, no one is going to want to come home after work and have THOSE people outside, i wouldn’t.
Another one of your members at our first open house said, ” we don’t need anymore social housing in GW, we have enough.”
By the way Tom how tall is the building you live in, more than five?
By the way kudos to Tom Durrie for taking the signs down.
We can hardly control what individual people, followers of our group or not, might say anymore than you can.
I agree
Though Ken I think you can control yourself a bit more. That whole “Do you have a roof over your head” schtick isn’t flying when you are proposing two towers and one being the BOFFO for-sale-market-15-storeys high condo-tower that could take the roof over my head if developers start gentrifying this area. Who is going to be nicer to your clients anyway? Your neighbours or some vacationing airBNB or foreign owner? We want to keep this a functioning community.Injecting a tower with up to 300 people right by us, low income housing and native housing, with a hundred kids walking to school and trying to live here, too. What is that corner at Venables and Commercial going to look like at 8:30 – 9 am in the morning? Build the Kettle – yes – Put the tower somewhere else. YES
This process is becoming disheartening. If you are to believe there are sides, I suppose I am on the no tower side. That said, I am very pro-mental health and have nothing against a 30 bed new Kettle facility “in my backyard.”
Seeing accusations that have been made in the media and Twitter from tower supporters and Kettle staff has made me realize we have dipped into an ugly zone.
Yes, there are many residents in the neighbourhood who don’t want a high density tower in This neighbourhood (NIMBYS as a kettle employee has rudely called us…).
Why is it that there can’t be more respect for the process? Resorting to name calling and accusations is just counterproductive to everyone.
I support mental health. I support a Kettle expansion. I also support allowing residents of neighbourhoods to be able to provide input on major changes that will impact them without being subjected to name calling.
Who from The Kettle called community members Nimby?
I am dismayed by the argument that a certain cause validates an unacceptable design response. There is no end to good causes. Is the city to be filled by nothing but one-off site specific and ill-fitting developments, for this reason? Or, conversely, should there be a deeper analysis and understanding of what the prevailing character and scale already is, and the limits to which that can be modified if and when necessary?
In this case, even doubling the prevailing zoned height and density would create a 5.0FSR/8 storey development. Most people would rightly think that this would be offensive and out of scale on similarly zoned streets like W. 4th in Kits or Main Street in Riley Park. Why should it be acceptable in Grandview Woodlands? I have never been convinced that social housing developments must of necessity stand out from their settings.
If you took everyone into consideration, this is what I would envision: A Kettle with expanded kitchen and facilities and rooms. Have a roof top garden that is top notch and use part of the city property in the back for a farmers market to sell veggies flowers etc, include the whole community. The city property transformed into a park, where the Kettle clients like to hang out with a smoking area, and more trees. Maybe even keep Astorinos and the Kettle could rent it out and make money and use it for birthday parties or yoga or art therapy or whatever – put a gym in it.. Dreaming but wouldn’t it look like Commercial Drive? It would be sad to see all the trees cut down to build such a tall and high density market for sale condo tower on that parking lot. And SO CLOSE to our homes, whether it be a house or shitty run down apartments. We are afraid once a shiny new construction goes up, developers will be sniffing around at our rental units. Scared of gentrification of the added 300 people to our block, and how the traffic will affect that corner used by our kids to get to school every morning. And BOFFO build its tower in a more appropriate place like by a skytrain. We have been coexisting with the Kettle for a long time and do not want the fact that we oppose the tower to wreck that, and we need to be assured we are all pulling for the same thing and stop the name calling and start negotiating.