When it’s time to talk about changes to 450 acres in the heart of the city, it’s time to hold an open house event. From January 25, 2017.
Crowded and noisy
Welcome
Almost ready
Article Categories
Archives (2003-13)
Recent Articles
Recent Episodes
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
Standing around in a freezing cold warehouse with beer in hand reminded me a bit of when I was younger and frequently went to indie live music shows put on in similar repurposed spaces. You can still find such events from time to time in the Flats, though I’m not sure for how much longer, considering that the Flats Plan advocates building 3,000+ new homes in the “creative core” of the Flats. I question how much creativity will remain in the area after that happens.
Overall I liked a lot of what I saw, but the inclusion of so much housing struck me as deeply odd. I thought the focus of the Flats plan was to unlock economic potential and increase job growth. Turning industrial zones into residential seems counter productive to this goal.
This is a weird take on it, given that the residential is proposed to be confined to 2 tiny parts of the Flats, adjacent to existing residential.
Why irrevocably turn any industrial land into residential when there’s enormous amounts of existing residential land, much of it low density SFH, in Vancouver that can be upzoned?
There’s plenty of existing under utilized residential land adjacent to the Flats if we’re looking for a solution that creates more housing near the Flats.
Adding residential to the direct edge along Main to complete the streetwall makes some sense to me. I don’t see the logic in going any further that that.
They didn’t go much further than that, IIRC.
I believe some of that is rental, but I’m not sure of the proportion. Perhaps some subsidized rentals for future hospital staff would work here. Agree that the Main St side would be the best place for limited residential, but I’d also like to see some zoning for innovation centres and tech companies connected to the tech campus.
It saddens me to hear that Vancouver is so ridiculously expensive that we need subsidized housing for hospital workers. I agree it’s probably necessary in this crazy city, but it essentially means that Vancouver taxes would be paying healthcare employees wages (instead of the provincial govt paying). Besides, where will it end? Subsidized teacher housing next to schools? I’d rather just have the BC govt pay people a decent living wage.
Government workers are VERY WELL paid in this country. FAR TOO WELL many argue in light of benefits, working hours and very low risk of layoffs.
See here http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fraser-institute-government-employees-b-142500854.html;_ylt=AwrTcd.EeItYhLEAWB4nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTE0c2o2Z29zBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDUFJEQ1RMMV8xBHNlYwNzcg– or here
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/search/site/wages
or here
http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/7290-public-sector-workers-oped.html
Since nurses and other hospital workers incl doctors work shift work in many cases it does make sense to put housing close to hospitals. As such, the portion of residential is indeed far too small in this whole area. Vancouver still approves 2-3 story industrial buildings nearby. WHy not allow 6-7 stories with 4 story residential on top ?
As such, much of the unaffordability is Vancouver made through poor zoning and excessive parking and building requirements.
Missing in Vancouver is a debate of monetization of very valuable VSB land. This model has been successfully implemented by UBC and SFU, and could easily be done on 10-20 VSB’s (or other jurisdisctions’) school sites by entering into long term leases, say 99 years, to build commercial and condos on top of schools, so what is now a 2 story crumbling buildings could be a 10-35 story tower with mixed use.
Yup. The Fraser institute, that bastion of reporatage at the behest of their secret private and corporate donors.
In their haste to sock it to those evil, devil-worshipping HEU and NU employees (no doubt with little shrines to Lenin in their closets), the FI would condone privatizing healthcare across the board and bankrupting an ageing society with fees on everything and a 600% increase in health insurance costs. Once the unionized workforce is terminated, then a larger army of low paid cleaners, maintenance workers, ill-trained private contract nurses and wealthy doctors with ownership shares in the hospital will march in to take their place. Half the new and underpaid employees will be terminated themselves one day by computers and automation.
One industry will do well, at least from the board and shareholder perspective: Private insurers with several square km of cubicle farms filled with underpaid form fillers and phone answerers located in Bangalore, and a private bureaucracy that would put the Ministry of Health to shame.
All that disruption just to create private profit opportunities for a handful of one percenters from the commons, lowering the quality of healthcare in the process.
Another comment on the “2 tiny parts” of the Flats. It may look small on a map, but the tiny area along 1st contains Catriona Jeffries Gallery, Windsor Gallery, Gallery Jones, The Lab, Chernoff Fine Art and more.
This feels like a classic gentrification scenario. Artists put in the sweat equity to make an area vibrant and interesting, then it’s redeveloped and artists are displaced. I don’t think it can be overstated how impactful the business owners of this area have been to the area. An example of this is the fact that the “Flats” branding that the CoV is using for this planning exercise was taken from the annual “Flats Block Party” that was initiated by these galleries. This “Creative Campus” is in my opinion currently the most successful area of the Flats. I don’t know why the City wants to fiddle with a good thing that is working as it is.
I dunno maybe I’m overreacting but if I was a gallery operator here that had setup shop for the long term but was now facing higher property taxes and possible eventual displacement due to new city incentives to redevelop, I’d consider this a real kick in the teeth.
You do have a point about original culture emerging naturally, only to be displaced by the policies of often well-intentioned bureaucrats, sometimes by politicos with flush developer donor accounts.
Calgary’s beautiful Burns building in east downtown was such a case: Filled with illegally living-in artists (my brother and many friends lived there — the landlord was sympathetic and saw the income as a space holder on the pre-sale ledger) producing original works and offering a vibrant, progressive community in counterpoint with oil company suits and cowboys (this was the 70s …) and an absolutely dead post six o’clock downtown. Along came the mayor of the day, knocking on the doors to tell the artists and musicians how the city was going to kick them out and designate Burns as part of an official Arts Precinct.
Still, whenever I pass by Long and McQuade on Terminal Ave, I long to drop in and buy a Gibson 335 and a Marshall studio amp. I don’t give a fig about the luxury car outlets next door.
I like the plans. I went to a couple of the workshops. If you build it, they might not necessarily come though. There’s more to creating an economy than just rezoning. But, I like the intent.
BTW, I think the City needs to do some ethnic (and economic) diversity outreach for these sorts of things. This area is sandwiched between Chinatown and Mount Pleasant, and it felt like very few local residents came out to voice their opinions.
It is important to keep most of the rail yards intact because they directly serve the port and will likely be vital for a future modern electrified passenger rail service.
Reserve a 2nd skytrain ROW. We are almost at capacity. The sale of density can pay for a loop to waterfront
Yup .. and it would re-vitalize East End of downtown Van and spur billions in new development indeed !
There is already one Skytrain line through this geographically constrained neighbourhood, and soon to be a second (Broadway line from VCC along Great Northern Way, with a stop at Emily Carr). Not sure what an addditional one would do.
Don’t understand the density comment. This land is largely industrial, not residential. There are limited areas of mixed use, ie residential above art studios and retail.
Jeff; 2nd skytrain from COMMERCIAL to downtown. will be needed when the existing line reaches capacity. Extending the Expo line from waterfront back to commercial via the CPR & the flats to create a loop in both directions would double present capacity . Selling density refers to public benefits received from a CHANGE in land use.
Take the new Broadway line from Commercial to Cambie. Transfer to the Canada Line northbound. There you go, a second line downtown, in the current plan. Planners speak of that new connection extending the useful life of the Expo line, ie providing more years before additional capacity is required.
I understand what selling density is. Given the current industrial zoning in the flats, and the intent to maintain it for jobs, the zoning won’t be changing. You could presumably sell density along Hastings to pay for a new line there, but that doesn’t impact the flats.
BOTH expo & canada lines are already close to capacity between broadway & downtown during rush hour.
I don’t agree with using development charges and CACs to pay for transit. There’ll be plenty of things to use that money on to make the FCF a more desirable place. Senior governments should be funding at least 75% or more of the capital costs.
75% of the zoning uplift value would be plenty for all.
Speaking of corporate-funded propagandists like the Fraser Institute – there’s a DVD titled: Koch Brothers exposed – an expose of these born-obscenely-rich manipulators who spend hundreds of millions on contrived advocacy groups, lobbyists, and direct campaign contributions to run the US “democracy”. Like the late great George Carlin said, he loved the freedoms they used to have; or the well-known maxim: the greatest government money can buy.
Governments are too often the lap dogs of corporations. Pushing back billionaire psychopaths is Sisyphean. They would rather have you shot, or jailed, than share; rather spend $100K/year of taxpayer money per person for jails than make the world equitable. The US private prison industrial complex is horrific – American Gulags.
Meanwhile they bask in the adulation of fatuous MBA billionaire butt-sniffers.
Don’t you love it? Community contributions from the lucky developers make the area really nice and trendy. Art and stuff. So that adds a hundred g’s to the cost of a one bedroom pad. So?
I misspoke. At least 80% of capital costs should come from senior governments. Say 40/40/20.