The Vancouver Courier published this letter by the West Point Grey Residents Association. This group has zoning concerns, apparently not wishing much change in the current zoning for the surrounding area.
Re: “First Nations announce intention to buy provincial Jericho Lands,” Feb. 12.
1. We are encouraged that the province has confirmed a unified planning process for the combined lands and look forward to collaborating with First Nations and other stakeholders in planning the future shape of Jericho as an integral part of the local community.
2. We are concerned that a final sales agreement based on land value appraisals could effectively “price in” expectations regarding scale and density of development before community consultation and planning has so much as begun.
3. The WPG Community Vision adopted by Vancouver city council in 2010, makes clear that “the outcome of a Jericho Lands planning process should be a plan for the site developed in consultation with the WPG community” and that “there should be early feedback to city council on the interests and concerns of the WPG community before any key decisions are made.”
4. Consequently, our expectation is that no key decisions are being made (or assurances given) in regard to potential rezoning, and presume that any land value appraisals presently under consideration are based roughly on existing zoning or appropriately cautious expectations.
West Point Grey Residents Association, Vancouver
Meanwhile, further information from Frank O’Brien in BIV on assessed value of the Jericho lands.
Two years ago, the same trio of [First Nations: ed] bands, with Canada Lands, a federal Crown corporation, purchased the adjacent 52-acre federal portion of the Jericho Lands. The group paid $237 million, or about $4.5 million per acre.
The land could be worth much more today. Last week, a 104-year old house on a 33-foot by 110-foot lot a few blocks away on West 1st Avenue sold for $4.23 million, $750,000 over its asking price, according to agent Brendan Price of Rennie & Associates Realty.
There is no information on what the First Nations have bid for the land, but if the value is close to the original Jericho deal, the 38 acres could be worth more than $170 million.
Apparently many folks prefer lower than high density: http://www.vancouversun.com/barbara+yaffe+lower+mainlanders+strongly+against+continuing+densification/11744689/story.html
I can see the day that if folks like the WPGRA ran the show instead of city council, then given current trends their properties will arrive at an affordability ceiling ($10 million? $15 million?) and no one will buy them and owners will not be able to pay the taxes on them.
And where does this magical land come from that allows for more single family housing?
From filling in the ocean with the rubble from leveled mountains. From converting farms to large lot subdivisions so the kids can run around in a backyard park until they are 10. After that, operating a ride-on mower will be pure joy, as will vacuuming the 3,500 ft2 house into their 70s and spending literally months every year sitting in their SUVs.
Admittedly, that’s a little facetious. It’s a good thing we have planners and city councils to wisely look beyond last century …. right?
Making land out of oceans and nibbling at the edges of the ALR in certain places should CERTAINLY be considered.
Making more livable communities without high-rises, but more mid-rises should also be considered as should be densification along major arteries like Hastings, Granville or 76 Ave.
And more rapid transit, to connect it all, not just wobbly buses or free roads, i.e. road tolls and subways !
Nibbling at the edges of the ALR means the end of the ALR. As soon as you let a little out, speculation runs amok and it’s over.
Building land in the ocean is just ridiculous on a number of fronts, your suggestion just makes you sound silly.
Oh really ?
Richmond was a mudflat and is now a city. As was airport island. Ever been to Miami with its numerous artificial islands incl Miami Beach ?
Ever heard of Venice, Italy or San Mateo, CA?
What about False Creek area, Coal Harbour or Delta Port in Tsawwassen ?
All these places were ocean, tidal mudflats or shallow semi-submerged islands once. Plenty of those at round Vancouver, Richmond, Delta, Port Moody or N-Van!
The affordability issue in Metro-Van as such is entirely man-made due to outdated or far too restrictive land use policies.
Without dikes, Richmond would still be a mud flat with its highest point 1 m below mean sea level at high tide. Unfortunately, salt water is infiltrating the ground from below now and will eventually affect farming and urban development.
This is the failure of surveys … people can only respond to the question asked.
“Respondents overwhelmingly said they covet the nature and green space around them” … interesting. I’ve lived in suburbia, I had grass to mow, and everyone had a fence, and the nearest real park required driving to. I now live in a tower, with a community garden literally outside my front door (on the third floor), I have 3 parks within 100m, and there’s a beaver who thinks its a grand bit of nature only a bit further.
One large problem is that most suburbs are crap because they are inefficient in all measures, require cars to do anything, and have long transit times (transit used to indicate motion, not necessarily mass transit) to get to any place you might work. Most towers are crap because they don’t have green space, don’t allow any social space, have insufficient living space, and perpetuate a kind of gated community which is inherently uninclusive.
These things, however, are design problems, and both can be improved greatly. suburbs could gain more people and jobs if they were designed better, as could towers gain green, and social space, and could be designed to be inclusive. Both have been done elsewhere, both could be done here.
Of course people want green, and space, and enough room for a family, and so long as suburbia is the only place to get these things, many people will choose them. Requiring better design in midrise and towers, however, would allow these all to come to dense-land also, and I think many of the people who are steadfast in opposition to taller buildings might find that when designed well, they can have (almost) all the benefits of both, and (almost) none of the problems.
When all your choices are bad, declaring the winner of a survey is a pyrrhic victory, not something to be feted.
Obviously the WPGRA spokesperson is hoping that Jericho will be a simple and gentle extension of the existing area. If by some miracle that happens it would be a tragedy for the city and its residents.
I understand why they want low value attached to the land: so it will be easier to argue for things like green space and a community centre in the plans. But those things can happen as part of a higher density development and, in fact, are much more important should the new development be of significant density.
We all know Jericho will be developed at a similar scale to Wesbrook Village at UBC and proposed for Block F (the land that was removed from Pacific Spirit Park as a treaty settlement). So let’s price it accordingly.
The issue is ‘man-made’ and can be solved given the current land. It’s not a shortage of land, it’s a wildly inefficient use of land.
Creating a new island in the ocean for a swath of single family homes is such a ludicrous idea financially to start with, ignoring the obvious environmental issues, I don’t even know how to take you seriously any more.
I am not suggesting single family. Half of the Netherlands is dyked land below sea level. Venice is pretty dense at 3-5 stories and entirely walkable. We could create a New Venice in Boundary Bay, for example or off Tsawwassen or Richmond, or UBC even.
I could easily imagine this entire car free island for 200,000+ people with ample beaches, bike and ped ways. Can you, or rather why couldn’t you ?
But of course the environment, the birds you know. Who else needs to relocate in the mud ? Some crabs maybe ?
All doable. ALR besides 10 story buildings like in Richmond, too, could see some modest relaxation.
You advocate for more single family houses, the article you cited was all about more single family houses.
Fill it all in! Who needs those stupid birds anyway. Think of the views from the new bike bridges into your car free paradise.
This land is in such a strategically good spot, the City absolutely cannot let these spoiled brats get their own way.
This issue of how to develop this land goes way beyond the interests of some self centered folks in West Point Grey. Given the size of this parcel of land and the rare opportunity that it presents, the best interests of the whole city of Vancouver has to be taken into consideration. Pretty sure the WPGRA doesn’t come close to seeing that way though.
I suggest the lowest density built form should assume attached freehold single family home architecture (2-3 storeys, all with separate suite capability), probably located at the very top near 8th Ave, with low and mid rise closer to Highbury (4-15 storeys) with possibly two higher density nodes (25 storeys?) at Broadway and 4th Ave. There must be provision for the major income groups and all ages and abilities.
The entire site should be ventilated with the judicious use of park space. Wide and well-treed boulevards and medians can also act like ‘linear parks.’
Here’s hoping the design consultants are very innovative and are motivated by design excellence and not the bottom line. That would take an understanding client. Canada Lands has built some innovative projects before when Larry Morgan was the regional boss out here. I would consider this project a failure if there was even one detached home, or if it was towered up all the way to the top and contained ubiquitous, uninspired and mediocre architecture and urban design.