Crazy for Fraser Street
Don’t dub Fraser as ‘the new Main Street’ – it’s got a character all its own
A little weekend sunshine was all I needed to spend a few hours strolling one of Vancouver’s oldest and most storied thoroughfares: Fraser Street. Though I’ve lived in every corner of Vancouver throughout my life, Fraser Street has been home for me and my family for nearly a decade. Like many of the city’s neighbourhoods it has been undergoing change, and has become more desirable for homebuyers who’ve pushed prices for some properties into the seven figures. While Fraser Street runs from the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood all the way to the water’s edge on the Fraser River North Arm, I concern myself mainly with the area between Kingsway and East 41st Avenue.
Since moving into the neighbourhood dubbed Mountain View (thanks to its proximity to the city’s only cemetery) I’ve been involved in a number of community-building projects along Fraser. I consider myself lucky to have neighbours who all share a passion for our community, and love Fraser Street! My fellow bloggers over the years have watched Main Street bloom into one of the most exciting streets in our city, and naturally they assumed that some of Fraser’s retail strips might eventually liven up. See these optimistic posts from the archives of Hummingbird 604 and VancityBuzz. There are welcome signs that Fraser Street is evolving, but there’s no question that opening a retail storefront here is still a considerable risk unless you sell medical marijuana or grow-op equipment.
In the coming weeks I’ll be talking more about a community project that started from a germ of an idea posted on City Caucus. For today, I’m going to share a few photos I shot from my walk between East 15th Avenue (McAuley Park) and down to East 44th Avenue (South Hill).
First, I cannot overlook the to-die-for view of our North Shore Fraser Street provides as in the shot above. My kid can attest to all the occasions I’ve pointed to those mountains and gushed over their beauty.
The automotive repair shop at the corner of East 19th with the tin siding and big ‘For Sale’ sign is clearly not long for this world. New housing developments on neighbouring blocks have permanently changed the character of the area. All the asphalt and chain link now seems out of place in a part of a city that was nothing more than a peat bog.
One of Fraser Street’s lesser attractions is the block-long Glad Tidings Church. It’s imposing blank exterior is, in my opinion, hostile to its surroundings. Hard to believe it was ever approved by city planners. It’s hard to say how GTC could adapt, short of opening up the west wall and finding some space among its mass for retail or offices.
Les Faux Bourgeois has become one of Vancouver’s favourite eateries, and its presence alone is having a positive impact to the row of shops beside McAuley Park. Especially wonderful is the hip coffee joint Matchbox. With just a little warm weather young people sat out to sip lattes and dine. The area has great energy, and you have to wonder what other venues might arrive here next.
While Main Street has contiguous retail properties from 2nd Avenue all the way south to 34th Avenue, Fraser’s retail strips are linked by blocks filled with single-family housing. Some of the shops closer to Kingsway cater to particular tastes like guns and bibles. However, a hip hairdresser and shoe store has opened up nearby. Further south a new restaurant called Fray (“Always local, always fresh”) has become a godsend for folks around here. Next door The Outpost Café was perhaps the first hipster coffee shop in the area when it opened a couple of years ago.
I’ve previously boasted about our Fraser Street neighbourhood banners, which were the first community project of its kind thanks to the volunteers who made the first set happen back in 2002.
The most recent set we’ve hung from East 24th Avenue to East 31st were done in cooperation with Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House and real estate developers Ledingham McAllister, who in recent years built two large housing developments along Fraser Street – Century and Karma.
The “Century” development features a No Frills grocery store which has become the busiest shopping destination in the area. Next door a Starbucks and Shoppers Drug Mart provide more of the necessities of life within walking distance. No question the neighbourhood is a better place because of it.
The next image we’ve got used to here along Fraser Street are the four-storey housing and retail developments, such as the one going up at East 27th Avenue in the photo below. I welcome the additional housing here, but wonder when the market demand for the retail space here will catch up with the supply. I’m told that most of the space is simply too expensive for many to run a profitable business. So much of it sits empty, and the street suffers for it.
There are exceptions to this pattern of course, such as Indulgence Desserts near the corner of East 28th Avenue. The proprietor Clare not only creates some of the most artful and sweet delicacies in Vancouver, she’s a fantastic neighbour. My daughter visits often just to peek at the gorgeous macaroons Clare makes.
The final attraction of Fraser Street I’ll mention today is admittedly not to everyone’s taste: the Mountain View Cemetery. The west side of Fraser Street between East 31st and East 41st is all cemetery, and while it’s not the kind of place you’ll see people tossing a Frisbee, it is a pleasant place to walk and learn about the history of our city. On my stroll I came across a group doing one of the guided tours of the cemetery conducted by volunteers. If you’re interested in ever checking one of them out, you can find more information at vancouver.ca/cemetery.
Perhaps someday, as I’ve written previously, Fraser Street will be the location our city’s south side hub. Maybe the retail here will one day boom as it has along Main Street. But despite all the changes I expect that Fraser Street will always retain its rough charm. It’s a great part of Vancouver, and I’m proud to call it home.
– originally published at CityCaucus.com
April 6, 2012 @ 8:40 am
Wonderful interlude, why don’t you get more people to ramble around their neighbourhoods taking photos and maybe getting the odd quote from people in the street. I have been travelling for more than a month and am itching to get back to Vancouver.
April 6, 2012 @ 9:50 am
Steven:
There is an elderly gentleman that lives in Kits and who has dubbed himself the Kitsilano Welcoming Committee. He walks the streets and just stops and talks to people. A wonderful man who shares his life history of living here. I understand from time to time he is at the Legion on West Broadway. I am guessing he is in his 80’s, always nicely dressed and uses a walker. I’ve enjoyed my chats with him over the years.
Happy Easter everyone!
April 6, 2012 @ 12:05 pm
Cheers, Steven. The sun is peeking out this afternoon and while not yet warm signs of spring are everywhere.
April 6, 2012 @ 9:13 am
What a great read on a cloudy Friday morning. Mike, you have brightened my day. But I believe that Fraser Street will one day be a wonderful street lined with interesting shops. The grow op stores, and the bail bond stores will be replaced by off beat clothing shops, florists and eateries. People like Mike will glory in the magnificence of their community.
April 6, 2012 @ 12:06 pm
Thanks, Bob!
April 6, 2012 @ 10:18 am
Ah Bobh, wish I could agree with you but I have to say your futuristic view of Fraser is niave at best and I smirked as I read this article because I to love the diverse neighbourhood that is located in this area but as a resident of Mt Pleasant that just spent countless hours sitting through the Public Hearing’s for the Rize Developement I fear the same form of Developers monopoly may creep its way into your hood once Mt Pleasant gets ruined if this project goes through and you can kiss its unique character and flavour bye, bye.
You see Mt Pleasant is amazing as is, unique in its nature while still being able to maintain a diversere area that houses lower, middle and to some degree upper class citizens of these varying household incomes.
What is not amazing is when a City Mayor and some Council members completly scrap a perfectly good community plan that took almost 10 yrs to complete and in 2 yrs create a ‘new’ one that in essence has the potential to destroy this vibrant community and turn it into nothing more than an area filled with high rises and high housing costs……hence driving out these fun, diverse and vibrant small local business’s and citizens.
Shame on you Mike for not englightening your reader’s of the political agenda that is clearly on the table regarding our area’s! and that in the orginal Mt Pleasant Community Plan…to put it in a simple context…..the tallest buildings in the area could only be located along 12th Ave which is C3A zoning and everything else below this would have to be a lower height as to not block views and to create a sloping hilltop like flow.
Now, surprise, surprise, along comes a Developer and suddenly a new Community Plan goes into development and this hilltop point is somehow now located along Broadway and no longer along 12th, hmmm I smell a rat, especailly when the community members who signed off on this new Community Plan had no idea this was going to be done!
Funny too as geographically 12th Ave is the highest land point in the area and so it makes sense everything flows downwards from this point……oh yeah, right, a Developer wants to put up a massive and I mean massive Development so our cash strapped Government is all over it but to hell with the citizens and how that will threaten the lively hood of small business in the area and increase housing costs both for buyers and renters(already landlords are increasing rents as speculation goes up in regards to the increase in property taxes this Development will cause).
Do I sound bitter? you are damn straight I am because not only is our area a ‘jewel’ of Vancouver and should left to grow and densify in a manner that works with the look and feel of the area but also because I am sick of the sheer stupidity of our Government that has yet to address the fact that slapping down massive high rises where ever the mood suits is not the answer to the ever increasing cost of living in this City I love and cherish.
Height is not the answer for density, especailly if you have an ‘alleged’ Green agenda (this also makes me smirk as I see the massive amounts of high rises being built in the blink of an eye down around the Olympic Village fiasco), can anyone say your a hypocrite Mayor Robertson?
Speaking of agenda’s, heads up! because if this Rize Development goes through there are plans to develop all the way up Kingsway with high rises…..as Mr Lin commented in a fluff piece in the Globe and Mail “I am not done with Mt Pleaseant” (shudder) and you know this means once Fraser street is the new hip and happening place that it will be its turn to be messed up.
Gentrification, higher prices and ugly glass towers here we come…..What an awesome legacy to leave to our children.
April 6, 2012 @ 8:54 pm
And here’s something else Mount Pleasant has that Fraser Street wishes it had… Michelle S of Mt Pleasant!
Reading the Bartholomew Plan I learned that Fraser was the pioneer road connecting False Creek to the Fraser River. The intersection of Kingsway and Fraser was the site of an early roadhouse. Today, the traffic dominated triangle of trees and green that lives there begs for a suitable bit of urban design to turn it into a neighbourhood ‘urban room’.
I learned from Ned Jacobs that the block along John Street that is only one house lot deep was originally a green processional leading to the cemetery from north. A kind of pan handle if you will. Think of what it would mean to us today if, instead of being turned into a series of house lots, the green boulevard had been preserved, and today could serve as a green link to the neighbourhood(s) to the north.
April 6, 2012 @ 9:43 pm
Thanks, Mike! As a resident of South Hill and a huge fan of Fraser in general, I appreciate your take on things. I moved over from Main and 30th, and Seoul before that, so I am keenly aware of the unique nature of the street. A segment in 42nd to 52nd might be a good follow up…Breka…Vancouver Meat Market…
April 7, 2012 @ 8:48 am
Fraser street is emerging as the next neighbourhood to ‘bloom’. Look at commercial property values by area over the last 10 years and you will see that Chinatown and Fraser show some of the lowest increases in value. Eventually… it will be their turn as businesses relocate to more affordable space and the area improves as a result.
Having a family home in the area, and spending all my growing up years on Fraser Street, the pending renaissance is a welcome sight.
April 7, 2012 @ 12:31 pm
So Julia is the answer to simply move every time prices go up? how about having a stable economy where one can actually have a business in an area for many years without having this concern over their head….a better option don’t you think?
Mike, I am very interested in your take on my comments and surprised that with all of your experience you remain mute because it seems that the well meaning residents of Fraser St. seem awfully niave or are not on top of the latest information regarding the potential for massive gentrification creeping up the hill.
To clarify, my comments are not meant as an insult, rather a warning that they need to mobilize now and form a strong community group in order to preserve the area’s uniquness and protect it from greedy Developers that think the answer to everything is to rezone areas to accomodate their massive tower and podium (yawn, boring…) high rises.
Just check out http://www.rampvancouver.com to see the monsterous development that Rize Alliance wants to slap down in the heart of Mt Pleasant even though 80% of the community has consistantly asked them to build something with less height forget the fact that it made it to a Public Hearing for rezoning even though it does not conform to the requirements of the Mt Pleasant Community Plan.
I just hope residents of Fraser St. are ready for a 200′ condiminium complex to be slapped down right next to there single dwelling homes….gonna suck to be in the shade 24hrs a day 365 days a year let alone what your property taxes will inflate to….food for thought no?
As I am sure Lewis will agree…..density does not have to be found in high rises only, there are options that are more attractive and less ominous looking not to mention having less impact on our pockets.
Thanks for the compliment by the way Lewis….just proud of my area and not interested in seeing it destroyed by outsiders with no respect for its unique character.
But I digress, this is Vancouver and since when does our Government listen to what the hard working taxpayers want……..
April 7, 2012 @ 2:19 pm
Michelle, a community either goes forwards or backwards with every house that is built or with every business that moves into an area. Staying still is not real life.
I am not suggesting wholesale changes to how a neighbourhood functions and I am very concerned about the unwillingness for Council to heed the desires of the community so please do not misinterpret my statement.
Fraser Street has been in decline for several decades and is finally showing signs of life. I consider that cause for celebration.
April 7, 2012 @ 3:52 pm
I agree with you whole heartedly Julia and Mt Pleasant is a perfect example of a community that was in decline but over the years, and might I add without massive Developments and Highrises being built, it grew ‘organically’ and is the great community that it is.
The downside to this is that once and area is deemed ‘desireable’ it seems Developers swoop down like vultures on a piece of carion.
Now a handful of Developers have come into the area and created projects that fit into the look and the feel of the neighbourhood and I can only respect their due diligence to do so.
The ones to fear and loath are the likes of Rize Alliance who do alot of ‘window dressing’ to fool the community into believing they are seeking out the best for the area but in truth want to build ‘up’ to get the monetary windfall.
All I am saying is yes, be glad your area is in a state of improvement but be wary and prepared for as it grows more ‘hip and happening’ the vultures will fly in.
April 7, 2012 @ 10:59 pm
Isn’t it strange that Fraser Street began its decline when the Fraser Street bridge closed, ending its role one of the main routes to Richmond. Maybe Gordon Price can write an article trying to explain that little nugget.
April 8, 2012 @ 9:05 am
Michelle,
We get it.
Julia, I agree, I welcome change to this area. We bought in (yes it was possible for a young couple to buy a house despite the rhetoric) and are enjoying some of the new amenites that come with change. Can’t say I’m a big user of what’s under the century building, but at least it affords options.
April 8, 2012 @ 9:23 am
Glad you get it boohoo, but no need to be so rude when someone is passionate and versed on what is going on in their neighbourhood and my comment was addressed to Julia in response to her last comment, I wasn’t asking for your opinion.
Next time why don’t you be a better neighbour and comment positively and appreciatively that people are willing to go to bat for their community.
I can only hope that when the time comes you will be pro-active about doing something rather than simply putting words down on a blog.
April 10, 2012 @ 11:16 am
Michelle,
Passion and reason aren’t often found in the same space, but when they are, you can do wonders with them.
I live in North Van and I applaud their thinking. In simple terms, they have created a series of town centers around the North Shore that will be connected by transit and bike routes – a few of the targeted areas, like Lower Lynn, are in bad shape. This area as an example will have a mix of towers, condos and town homes that blend towards the detached homes. The District has realized a certain density will be required to offer housing types to all income levels and to attract additional services to the area. I could see a similar model working in select areas of Vancouver.
You make the assumption with Rize that greed is their main motivator. I know some of the principals at Rize and I can tell you they are as passionate about development as you are about your community. They aren’t a money first organization and although they may have made mistakes in your community, I believe they honestly want their project to make the area better. I’m not here to debate the building in particular as you have made your decision on that but more, I want to raise the issue that some developers are passionate about what they do and aren’t looking for a fast buck. If it was all about money, there is lower hanging fruit they could pick.
April 8, 2012 @ 10:20 am
Why don’t I comment positively? Good one!
Fraser street is not mt. pleasant. Fraser street is also a long street with a couple of distinct places–lumping it into one place isn’t accurate. But in the 25th-41st range, I welcome the change.
April 8, 2012 @ 10:33 am
The closing of the Fraser Street bridge (1974) was also around the time when the second generations of Mennonite immigrants started looking to the suburbs for affordable housing. One group of new Canadians were established and moving out, making way for a new group that needed to establish themselves and create their own mark. You see the transition it in the school demographics, churches and retail stores.
While Main Street (between 41st and 52nd) has had a clear identity, calling itself the Punjabi market, Fraser has been more of an ethnic mix. While that sounds great, it makes for tough merchant cooperation and promotion.
In the last 5 years, a Business Improvement Association has been formed in the 41st to 51st area and its efforts are evident everywhere.
April 8, 2012 @ 11:03 am
The “South Hill” BIA on Fraser Street has done a great job. You really have to go to the strip between East 45th Avenue down to around 49th along Fraser to see what some have dubbed “real Vancouver” — a culturally and economically diverse neighbourhood that buzzes. Communities that have traditionally been “commercially” segregated instead shop at each others’ establishments. Visit the area to see what I mean.
As for the parts north of 41st, I don’t expect anything to happen between 30th and Kingsway for a few more years in terms of business improvement associations.
April 8, 2012 @ 11:11 am
Happy Easter Mike!
The formation of the BIA was incredibly painful and did not fly the first time around. Now I think they have seen the benefit. Their budget is tiny but their enthusiasm is huge. I think we can anticipate great things from that organization.
I suspect you are right about the 30th to Kingsway stretch. Establishing a BIA is tough slogging especially if the property owners live offshore or english is their second language.
April 10, 2012 @ 11:42 am
Thanks for your kind words for the South Hill BIA, Julia. The BIA’s second term (seven years) was just recently approved and the association keeps working on projects to improve Fraser Street between 41st and 50th Avenues. We are getting new sidewalk planters this year, as well as a temporary public space under the City’s VIVA program.
April 10, 2012 @ 4:52 pm
The long stretches of single family housing on Fraser should be rezoned to C-2 (4 storey residential with retail at base). This would create a continuous retail frontage that over the long term could create something similar to Main Street.
April 11, 2012 @ 12:12 pm
Thanks for the great post. My husband and I bought a fixer-upper around 18th/Fraser two years ago. Things had been steadily improving, but in the last 6 months especially the change is notable. There is a new four story condo going in at the SW corner of Fraser/18th, near the auto shop for sale, and across the street another large building has just been listed. There is a new cafe opening at Kingsway/St Catherine shortly.
Especially agree with you about the gigantic Glad Tidings church, which is an eyesore, and poorly maintained to boot.
And a final note to say that I wholeheartedly approve of the Rize development, and would welcome more density along Kingsway and Fraser.
April 11, 2012 @ 5:13 pm
Gee Rachel, so glad you are for the Rize Development….score for the density can only be achieved by height mistruth…..guess you are also for the ruining of small business’s, increase in property taxes, ruin of a vital bike path along 10th Ave., rent incresase and hence displacement of low income individuals and families, increase in vehicle traffic and the blocking of views from residences that were ‘promised’ that no highrises were going to be built, oh and lets not forget that it does not adhere to a single aspect of the Mt Pleasant Community Plan.
Give me a shout when a Developer drops a highrise next to your place and blocks all of the sunshine from getting through, in the meantime you might wish to hone up your research skills so that when the fight to save your neighbourhood comes around, as it surely will, you will at least be prepared with the ‘facts’.
April 11, 2012 @ 10:25 pm
Michelle – you need to spend a few years abroad living in established world-class cities to temper your bile.
Affordable housing means high density housing. It’s like gravity – constant.
Which unhappy low-rise developer are you lobbying for?
April 11, 2012 @ 11:26 pm
Eli, I never said I was against density and I am a huge advocate for affordable housing, what I wrote and you failed to read correctly. is that density does not have to be achieved via highrises.
There are multiple ways density can be achieved through intelligent planning that will NOT threaten the livelyhood of vibrant neighbourhoods such as Mt Pleasant out outlying areas.
But seriously, did you just move to Vancouver? because anyone who lives here and does the math can see that density has NOT created affordable housing, in fact City Hall cannot give any statistics to prove that density has indeed created affordable housing.
I am lobbying yes, but for citizens to have a voice against a Government that has not got a clue as to what they are doing and are in a desperate money grab to fix their screw ups which will only eventually screw over you and me.
Oh, and FYI I have lived abroad in world-class and not so world-classe cities, maybe you need to go to blogging school and learn how to respond to people’s comments with intelligent responses….just a thought.
The only bile is the stuff stuck in my throat as I read baseless comments that come from arm chair critique’s like yourself who have obviously not educated yourself with facts.
April 11, 2012 @ 11:52 pm
Michelle,
You keep throwing aroung the word ‘fact’. I don’t think you know what that means. Calling people stupid or unaware of ‘the facts’ because they disagree with you is a bit silly.
April 12, 2012 @ 12:15 am
Ah boohoo, talk about calling the kettle black……..do you want facts? I could give you pages and pages of facts if that would make you happy, but then again it would make you look silly for commenting that you don’t think I know what it means.
You and Eli can shake hands because you want to put words in my mouth I never spoke. I never called anyone stupid, if they feel I am implying that then that is their own interpretation and my comments are not because someone disagrees with me but rather that I know their comment (s) is/are incorrect because I have the ‘facts’.
It’s late and I am tired of commenting on the incorrect information out there posted by arm chair crittiques like yourself but have no fear, I will be back with ‘facts’ lots of ‘facts’……happy now?
April 12, 2012 @ 9:05 am
Kettle black? I’m not claiming to have ‘facts’.
Yes, I would like to see your facts.
I suspect, well I know, that there are no facts when it comes to this discussion of what’s appropriate. What one person vs another deems appropriate for a neighbourhood be it height, density, streetscape or colour of the door is entirely subjective and not subject to ‘facts’.
I am in favour of significant density at this corner for a variety of reasons, primarily because it is essentially at the nexus of great existing and future transit. If you’re not going to put higher densities here, where are you going to do it. I do have reservations about the lack of open space being provided along with these developments. There are no neighbourhood parks near this corner–that needs to be addressed.
April 12, 2012 @ 12:38 am
Hey Paul H, I just read your comments, somehow I missed them earlier.
Lucky you, it is very rewarding when community and developement can come together and thats what it sounds like you have in N Van. It seems like a great model that should be looked at for Vancouver as I see its viability and sense.
But I must correct you on your comment that I have made an ‘assumption’ that Rize Alliance are just greedy Developers.
You see I have been very intimately involved with this whole process and on many, many numerous occassions Rize Alliance was given the chance to work with the community (long before the Public Hearing) that have voiced a concern from the get go that this Development was too high and did not fit in with the community’s look and feel.
It is very disingenous of a Developer to claim that they want to work with a community yet ignore their concerns and worse yet this project does not adhere to the MPCP in any way, shape or form.
As for my ‘feeling’ that greed is the great motivator I would like to ask you this…….seeing how the same density can be achieved at a lower height for this Development why is it that the Developer kept pushing for astronomical height in comparison to what is in the area? I think that says it all.
I understand you know people involved directly with Rize and I am sure there are a few with integrity but I am privy to way too much information to ever believe that this is not more than a money grab.
Maybe if you knew as much as I do (and maybe you do) you to would feel that all of this happy talk is simply window dressing and distraction techniques to hide the truth of what their true intent is. And trust me, it is not to respect the wishes of the community.
And yes I do know some Developers who are in it for the right reasons and I applaud their desire to build a great city that will leave us with a respectable history because for them it’s about more than just making a buck.
I would like to thank you though for the intelligent and respectful post, its nice to respond to someone who has at least gone out there and gotten more informed about the very important issues that surround us here in Vancouver.
April 12, 2012 @ 10:18 am
Hi Michelle,
One of the challenges with Vancouver as a whole, when compared to cities like TO or Calgary, is that we are land locked. We can’t simply keep spreading out because we either run into mountains or water. So in some instances we need to go up to achieve the density required to justify services such as retail stores and transit. London Drugs, Whole Foods, you name it have reasonably good models for determining when density will peak enough to justify an outlet. I am curious how we could achieve a similar density in the same foot print without going up. Are you thinking Rise could maintain the same gross sellable area without the towers?
With respect to your comments regarding blocking sunlight, that is legitimate. However, developers need to go to great lengths to demonstrate their shadow lines and view corridors don’t dramatically affect current or future residents. If those aren’t being adhered to, I think the City would be the prime candidate to answer for that. Rize can only propose, the City needs to approve and for the most part, City Planners are fairly good so I would think they could pick up on “misleading” reports.
April 12, 2012 @ 9:57 pm
Boohoo your comments and what we can expect from you is becoming so predictable…..don’t believe me, read your own comments posted here and elsewhere.
Paul H the following below will identify and illustrate how this Development does not comply, as stated by the City and current by-law, to the rezoning application nor does it have merit to do so and it will provide our favorite arm chair critique boohoo (yawn) with his much needed ‘facts’.
Yes, there are some good planners at City Hall, sadly they are often muzzled and told to tow the line or get axed, sounds so archaic but its true. As for City planners picking up on misleading reports to illustrate to you that this is not true just look at the renderings presented to the City by the Developer Rize Alliance and Architects, Acton Ostry (check out http://www.rampvancouver.com) which were proven to be grossly misleading to the point where they can face a formal complaint and yet no one at Planning said a thing, so either they knew and were trying to keep it hush, hush or they really are not professional at all to have missed it……
The Rize does NOT conform to the Mount Pleasant Community Plan: The Rize site reference in the Community Plan only says that it can accommodate more height and density, but unlike the other two large sites, the plan doesn’t suggest that it be rezoned. On page 25-‐26 of the Community Plan – the sections referring to The Kingsgate Mall and the IGA sites beyond that permitted under the current zoning – the section referring to the Rize site does not mention rezoning, and instead says, Iconic(landmark) building when granting permission for higher buildings͟. The additional height and density can be provided through the site’s existing C-‐3A Zoning Bylaw that conditionally allows increases from 1.0 FSR with 30 feet height, to 3.0 FSR with 70 feet height. Under the C-‐3A zoning this increase has to be earned through design performance. Iconic should be based on quality of design not on extra large size.
Requirements for Increased Height and Density:
Under the current C-‐3A Zoning there are requirements to increase the height from 30 feet to 70 feet the City must first consider: a) the intent of the district schedule, all applicable policies and guidelines and the relationship of the development with nearby residential area b) the height, bulk, location and overall design of the building and its effect on the site, surrounding buildings and streets and existing views c) the amount of open space, including plazas, and the effects of overall design on the general amenity of the area d) the provision for pedestrian needs e) the preservation of the character and general amenity desired or the area f) the submission of any advisory group, property owner or tenant. C-‐3A Zoning says that to increase density from 1.0 FSR to 3.0 FSR the City must first consider: a), b), c), d), above as well as the effect of the development on traffic in the area and the design and livability of any dwelling uses.
The above have not been reflected in the current plan, so therefore, the Rize has not earned the height and density based on all the above criteria.
Central Broadway C3A Urban Design Guidelines:
The Guidelines say for this site ” New development should be built to a height that matches significant older buildings up to six storeys (70 feet) in height.” and ” Maintain and enhance the view corridor to the north from Main and 12th by means of a descending scale of building heights with the Lee Building at Main and Broadway as the highpoint and 7th Avenue as the low point”, and “Ensure that existing significant reference points in the Broadway area (the Lee Building) are not obstructed by adjacent building heights” and “Higher buildings should be permitted immediately adjacent to the ‘gateway’ or arrival point (Main & 12th) to ‘frame’ the view, but development should be reduced in height from this point (or terraced down with the slope of a hill) to allow for the widening of views as the bridges are approached”.
Below is part of what RAMP wrote to the City and Mayor as a proposal for what form of Development the community who voiced opposition to Development in its current state and form would like to see on this site.
WE REQUEST: That development be consistent with the current scale of the properties surrounding the “Heritage Heart” of Mount Pleasant. That Council consider an increase to the allowed height and density from 9.2 m (30 feet) to no more than 21.3 m (70 feet) with a high-‐low massing rhythm of up to a maximum 21.3 m (70 foot) tower surrounded by 2 to 4 storey buildings and an increase in the floor space ratio (FSR) from 1.00 to no more than 3.00
BENEFITS: These recommendations respect the new Mount Pleasant Community Plan to increase height and density while maintaining the look and feel of the area and keeping the human-‐friendly scale of the buildings surrounding the Heritage Heart of our community. If the developer chose wood frame construction it would decrease the cost to build and thereby promote affordability. Wood frame construction is also better for the environment than concrete and glass towers. The form of development we are advocating will have less impact on land values, property taxes and rents in the neighbourhood, resulting in less displacement of low-‐income residents and small businesses
These are only a few quotes from the existing guidelines which show this project has not meet the design criteria for the area and there are quite a few more ‘facts’ I could post to prove this Development will not help the Mt Pleasant neighbourhood but actually hinder it from creating density without creating gross unaffordabiltiy.
I gladly await your apology boohoo.
April 12, 2012 @ 10:25 pm
Michelle,
I’ve never disputed that they are trying to amend/change the plan. That’s obvious.
Your statement, and plenty of others like ‘this Development will not help the Mt Pleasant neighbourhood’ is what I take issue with as you state it like that is a fact. It is not. That is your opinion. You do not represent the mt. pleasant neighbourhood. No amount of cutting and pasting from policy documents will change that.
April 12, 2012 @ 10:41 pm
The facts speak louder than my view on the situation boohoo just accept it because it is the truth and the information is out there to prove it or otherwise post some facts of your own to discredit my comments as oppossed to you always saying something but not backing it up with the relevant information……hence my earlier comment about the pot calling the kettle black.
April 12, 2012 @ 11:32 pm
I don’t have ‘facts’– that’s my point, this is all very subjective. Anyway you’re not getting/ignoring my point so forget it.
April 12, 2012 @ 11:41 pm
‘I don’t have ‘facts’– that’s my point, this is all very subjective. Anyway you’re not getting/ignoring my point so forget it’. @ boohoo
Ditto
April 13, 2012 @ 8:44 am
I understand very well you see this as black and white. The plan says x, they are proposing y therefore the facts are this is horrible for the community.
I don’t think it’s that black and white.
April 13, 2012 @ 10:13 am
@ BH, to a degree, you are correct, it isn’t. Zoning is typically listed in the Official Community Plan (OCP) as the general idea of what the planning group (City, Citizen’s, etc) thought would be appropriate when the plan was developed. Areas will contemplate a number of uses/denstiy and rezoning can occur within those limits – for example, a single family neighborhood can have sections that are indentified as allow medium density. The single family house exists today but at some time in the future it could be changed to multifamily and still fall within the OCP. There is still back and forth but changing to a zoning allowable within the OCP is generally a well documented process.
OCPs usually have a life cycle of 25+ years so you can imagine they may have missed things or the community changed in a direction not anticipated when the plan as originally conceived. As a result, Cities allow for what they call OCP “bumps” – move the zoning up or down to suit the current situation. I don’t know the exact details of the Rize building but this may be what occurred. They are not within the existing zoning but may be looking for some alternate/better use based on current conditions.
To Michelle’s point however, Cities should spend some serious time and effort answering the question of why an OCP change should be allowed.
April 13, 2012 @ 10:24 am
Well, there is no OCP in Vancouver for starters, but I know what you’re saying. OCP and other plan amendments are relatively common place in other municipalities. 25 years though–that’s not true. Most municipalities do a major review every 10 years with annual or biannual updates. I’m not sure what the Vancouver Charter calls for specifically.
Yes, when you amend a plan you should have good reasons to do so. But a plan is just a plan, it’s not set in stone (for good reason). The Mt. Pleasant plan is relatively new, so they should come up with very good reasons why an amendment is required. But it’s quite subjective to say whether or not they are meeting the intent of the plan (whether or not it’s ‘iconic’ or not, etc…)
Vancouver’s plans seem intentionally vague to this point—check out an NCP in Surrey. It is very specific with $/unit required for amenities and other conditions spelled out very specifically. Of course this does nothing to stop NCP amendments, but it’s a different approach–is it better, I don’t know.
April 13, 2012 @ 1:41 pm
Could you get the City to get a covenant on every church along Fraser for a few blocks ‘inland;
Do you realize how many theatre halls that would create for cultural revival if they became a string of theatres when the aging and ailing parishioners close the churches?
It would be fantastic and far-sighted.
April 13, 2012 @ 3:56 pm
Interesting ideas, Bill. I think as communities evolve we see these kinds of structures always finding new uses. Fraser area you are correct to point out has quite a few churches within a few blocks, including Glad Tidings, which would be an impressive mid-size venue for music or theatre if properly retrofitted.
April 13, 2012 @ 1:42 pm
No mention of the experimental street lights for the dead along Fraser.
Bright LED street lights shining from the east side of Fraser to the west where the cemetary is.
A few more on 33rd and 37th.
April 13, 2012 @ 1:44 pm
Have you figured out where the old streams were across Fraser Street?
And checked the surficial geology for the clay deposits in the area and how they were not overcome?
Or roamed the city archives for old photos of the empty spaces along the Number 8 tram line?
April 13, 2012 @ 4:05 pm
I’ve not spent much time thinking about the geology of the tea swamps near 19th Avenue, but there is a new project I’m working on which will feature some historical info of the lost streams.
April 13, 2012 @ 5:14 pm
See the uploaded copy (send them anything PDF for an free exchange) at Scribd.com
http://www.scribd.com/zikan7087/d/39146477-Vancouver-s-Old-Streams
April 13, 2012 @ 5:18 pm
And the story of the Legion at 20th and why it is inside a building and not, as most other legions are, free-standing.
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/961128/pe4.htm
April 13, 2012 @ 5:27 pm
Go to Grace United Church on Saturday for their Thrift Sale and then wander north and east up to 12th Avenue and east to Clark/Knight for some wonderful pocket development.
Take your camera and a notebook on your bike. Also see the views from the lanes
803 16th Ave E
April 13, 2012 @ 5:32 pm
Why has the Church created on the last day of the year 1936 at the corner of 19th Avenue and Prince Albert Street (then Burns Street) been visited by the Queen in 1991 and a Princess in 2008?
And why does it look so different but is instantly recognizable as a state church to some nationals?
Why does have not one, but two model ship hanging under the ceiling in the Sanctuary?
April 13, 2012 @ 5:49 pm
Good questions.
April 13, 2012 @ 5:47 pm
Glad Tidings? Jimmy Pattison’s church for a while, others.
http://vancouver.ca/COMMSVCS/bylaws/cd-1/cd-1(138).PDF
[ via CD1 bylaws http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/bylaws/cd-1/cd-1f.htm ]
Christian capitalist runs private empire: [FIN Edition]
by Diane Francis Toronto Star. Toronto Star [Toronto, Ont] 10 Sep 1986: B1
Full text on line in Canadian Newstand at VPL-Online
“Pattison still looks like the consummate used-car salesman: plenty of checks, stripes, and ultrasuede. His office is decorted in his favorite colors: powder blue, red, and gold. While he pursues worldly wealth, riches have always taken a back seat to Pattison’s religion. He usually attends Glad Tidings Temple on Fraser St., a Pentecostal Assembly in Vancouver’s east end, sometimes twice on a Sunday: once to worship and once to perform, playing the trumpet accompanying hymns. He does not belong to a specific church but tithes, giving 10 per cent of his personal income and 10 per cent of his company’s profits to various Christian charities. In 1984, he and some others donated $1 million to Glad Tidings. Pattison is probably the most generous supporter of 100 Huntley Street, Canada’s only home-grown evangelical television show. “I believe in God,” he says when asked what his religion is.”
http://search.proquest.com/docview/435496054/13613CCF09B3148D764/4?accountid=13800
April 13, 2012 @ 8:07 pm
Boohoo and Paul H, even though you are presenting comments that have some merit that would be applicable to other situations you are missing the simplist aspect of my objection to this Developement that overides any comments that are for this project.
It is simply not a project that is appropriately suited for this area, its too large and too dense for the actual physical property it will be seated on and vague or concise wording in the Community plan only adds to the confusion but it does fundamentally shows that this particular Development cannot be built because it does not meet the requirements, regardless at what stage of the game we are at and if it is granted rezoning then it is essentially an illegal building.
Just an interesting footnote that you will be seeing on the news and on Francis Bula’s Blog now, that will go to show the incompetance and ignorance of both City Planning and Rize Alliance.
RAMP hired a commercial delivery truck, similar to those that would be using the delivery bays in the Rize project to deliver goods to the large box commercial ventures, to see how easily they would be able to maneouver in and out of Watson St.
The reason this was done was because of the suspicion that it indeed would be very difficult and because no formal transport study was done by either the City nor the Developer and I am sorry but that is just nuts when you are going to put up something of this magnitude and you do not even do the appropriate studies to see if it can be accomplished.
You know what we found and videotaped along with all of the media in attendance……..it CANNOT be done without illegally running up and over the curb, blocking traffic for a long period of time as the truck attempted to move back and forth to jockey into postition to make the turn, and most importantly it cannot be done safely without jeopordizing the safety and welfare of cyclists, other vehicles and pedestrians.
In fact the police showed up because it was causing such a traffic jam and blocking the street for such a long time (lucky for us the officers were very understanding!) that they were helping direct traffic.
We knew it would be bad, we had no idea it would be this bad! Will post the footage when the link is ready because you have to see this to believe it…….blows my mind is all I have to say when realising the most important issue to have looked at when developing this area wasn’t even an issue for the Developer.
The other important factor is that this loading bay cannot be relocated to any other part of the building because it would create even more traffic jams and be even more dangerous nor can Watson St or 10th Ave be widened to accomodate such large vehicles.
This project is a joke and City Hall Planning is joke, at lease where this project is concerned.
And Boohoo, I don’t see things in black and white, I see in in the sense that some things are clear cut as being right or wrong……this Development is wrong and it needs to go back to the drawing board and done right.
April 13, 2012 @ 8:58 pm
“It is simply not a project that is appropriately suited for this area”
“I see in in the sense that some things are clear cut as being right or wrong……this Development is wrong”
That is entirely subjective, that’s all I’m trying to say. You’re not ‘wrong’, you’re not ‘right’, but it’s not absolute.
April 13, 2012 @ 9:22 pm
Man you like to nit pic boohoo! sometimes you have to pick a side and not debate it to death!
This is a situation that has more negative’s then positive’s that can be proven so its a no brainer. If I felt you were right based on your information and facts I would be agreeing with you, don’t muddy the waters with talk of subjectiveness.
Go relax and watch the hockey game! this situation is not going away.
April 14, 2012 @ 12:01 am
Talk of subjectiveness?? It’s all subjective lol!
April 15, 2012 @ 4:30 pm
Hey boohoo, this isn’t a pissing contest, show me the FACTS you have to prove my comments are incorrect, I keep asking and waiting but you ain’t supplying the info., then we can engage in some smart dialoge.
Saying its all about subjectiveness does not fly in this case, as we would get no where with no resolution ever.
April 15, 2012 @ 4:45 pm
I can’t prove your opinion is wrong Michelle, nor am I trying to. I’m simply pointing out it is an opinion. You think this is going to destroy the community etc… You might be right, you might be wrong, but it is not fact.
You say: ‘This is a situation that has more negative’s then positive’s that can be proven so its a no brainer’. Ok, says you. That’s your opinion. Other people may (and do) find this project has way more pros than cons. Neither of you are ‘wrong’, that’s why it is so subjective.
Acknowledging that something as complex as this is highly subjective can lead towards common ground. How can you have dialogue if your starting position is ‘You are wrong’?
April 15, 2012 @ 5:26 pm
“Acknowledging that something as complex as this is highly subjective can lead towards common ground. How can you have dialogue if your starting position is ‘You are wrong’?” @ boohoo
Because I am NOT saying everyone is wrong who is for this project, but merely correcting comments made with, yes I am going to say it, FACTS.
Trust me, I have spent countless hours discussing the topic with people for and against (including those who work for Rize Alliance) trying to find this middle ground because this is a very complex issue.
So when I say there are more con’s than pro’s its because I HAVE looked at every angle and idea with an open mind and recognizing others see merit where I do not so my comments are not biased.
My point is, and I hope you finally understand what I am saying here, is that based on the intensive research I have done and input on many different levels, this Development needs to go back to the drawing board because it fails to meet the standard requirements necessary to be developed on this site and this is not my opinion but the law as according to the Mt Pleasant Community Plan, plain and simple.
By doing so creates the opportunity to get it right by involving the City, Developer and most importantly the citizens so that what goes on this property meets or at least acheives a level of comprimise for those that want the density and those that wish to preserve the look and feel of Mt Pleasant.
I omit saying that the Developer should be included with respect to their right to a monetary gain simply because upon purchase of the property they knew what the zoning laws were and what needed to be done in order to get it changed per re-zoning changes and they have not done this.
By sending this back to the Devlopment phase gives them the opportunity to get things right and realise a profit so its a win-win situation for all sides.
Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part I hope to see this positive and proactive conclusion become a reality.
April 15, 2012 @ 9:25 pm
It’s not law Michelle, it’s a neighbourhood plan.
If what you say is true, then there would be no more debate, you would be right. But it’s not, and there is debate. So what does that tell you?
April 15, 2012 @ 10:50 pm
It tells me there are alot of people out there that have to get more involved in their neighbourhood’s and whats going on in them.
It tells me that someone needs to keep an eye on the Mayor’s office and what is going on there.
April 18, 2012 @ 3:37 pm
Hi Michelle,
I read in the paper that the Rize proposal passed. They mentioned a series of changes like one way lanes etc. Were those a direct result of your group?
The article also mentioned they would have been able to go 15 stories without rezoning and public hearing – did you ever see 15 storey design or was the public only show the 19-24?
I was definitely disappointed with the comments out of some councilors like Andrea Remier – she thought it was ugly but okay to take the money and run.
April 18, 2012 @ 11:49 pm
Well Paul H if anyone was on the fence about if certain City Hall Councillors and the Mayor were corrupt, we all got our answer the other day when they voted to pass this rezoning even though it does not have a single concession that would allow it to be granted the additional height and density.
We have no idea what changes are going to be made as they were not clearly defined by Council, they just muttered that it was an ugly building and needed some modifications.
I am sure the changes were the result of the number of wonderful, concerned citizens that came out to speak and/or wrote in to the City in opposition of this Development in its current state and form and in essence put pressure on the City to do ‘something’, but they are not nearly adequate changes when compared to what should have actually been done.
But it just really amounts to City mocking us because these are just slight cosmetic changes. It does not change that this Development legally should not go up nor does it change that there was an overwhelming opposition to it.
What it does do is once again clearly shows that the Mayor really does not give a damn about what the community wants and that he is just in it for the money grab for the CAC’s, which by the way we the citizens of Mt Pleasant have absolutely no say about as to where and when its going to be applied (we have it on video of City Planning telling us just that when asked how the money was going to be spent and where)..
The comment in the article is a poor judgement call on the journalists side because this information was not investigated properly as it is NO where in the Community Plan.
Below is a letter of retraction we sent the writer regarding this comment.
RE: Article by Jeff Lee, Vancouver Sun
“Dear Mr. Lee,
This is absolutely false information. There is no wording in the Mount Pleasant Community Plan that states the developer had the “right to put in a 15-storey tower…without rezoning.” Either this part of the story went unverified or a source mislead you. Can I please request that you substantiate the information or cite the source? Height is amongst the most contentious of all the issues in this rezoning application so it must be accurately represented.”
The existing C-3A zoning allows 30 ft, or 3 storeys, and 1.0 FSR outright.
Section 3.4 Large Site Development p. 9
“As a general guideline for the whole neighborhood, the community supports greater use of infill opportunities over high-rise development- but the Mount Pleasant community also sees some opportunities for some high-rise as well as mid-rise development in some specific locations, such as for large sites (ie. Kingsgate Mall, IGA site, and Broadway, Kingsway, Watson Street, and 10th Avenue site).”
Large Sites p. 25
Section 5.1 (i) Rize Alliance Development site
“Support the design of an ‘iconic’ (landmark) building when granting permission for higher buildings.”
With the exception of Councillor Carr who seems to be the only one with the fortitude to stand up against Vision’s dictatorship and respect the Communities voice, all of the Councillors and Mayor really took a step backwards and also showed their true colors when it comes to citizens rights still being trumped by Developers waving money in their face.
I will say that due to Acton Ostry Architects rendering deception, City Plannings perjury during the Public Hearing and Gregor’s ego it has opened the door for legal action so stay tuned……this fight is not over by a long shot!
April 19, 2012 @ 8:54 am
Thanks Michelle,
I am very curious to see if Mr. Lee is able to provide that information because it is put there as a main reason why CofV went the route they did to grab some cash. – $11.5 million before DCCS is what was quoted in the article I think.
As an aside, I can only imagine the outcry if Translink gets their wish to share in the funds derived from TOD. The Cities will want Translink’s cut added to the cost of development versus sharing the windfall. However, at some point, new housing can only support so much “taxation” before it doesn’t make sense. If Cities have to share the TOD related upzone charges they levy on new development, I wonder if that will change their position on approvals.
Cheers,
Paul.
April 19, 2012 @ 10:10 am
Vancouver needs more tall buildings full of overpriced condos like we need a hole in our head!
Here are some numbers: Vancouver proper is the 8th largest municipality in Canada, after Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Ottawa, Edmonton, Mississauga and Winnipeg. The population of Vancouver proper in 2006 was 578,041 and in 2011 it was 603,502 – Ha! That’s over 5 years. The other interesting number is that the change is only 4.4 percent increase, while Calgary is 10.8, Edmonton 11.2, Ottawa 8.8…
Weird. And, there are people out there who don’t think what is happening is “speculative” – explain?
(Imagine if all these tall buildings being approved were being built for companies, offices and space for more people in jobs – that would be coooool!)
April 19, 2012 @ 11:17 am
@ chris – thanks for the stats, nice to see the bs rhetoric we keep hearing that more density is needed is blown out of the water by numerical statistics that prove it isn’t so.
Ha, big Corporate companies don’t set up shop in Vancouver because its too expensive! Point in fact, a friend of mine who is a distributor of kids items has her products arrive from China and Europe here to Vancouver where it is then shipped out to a warehouse in Toronto and then shipped back to Vancouver to her because its too expensive to house it in a warehouse here. Nuf said!