Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion - Page 36

Changing City · #**701** Posted **Oct 12, 2017, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

^Thanks for the update. This project isn't actually under Rental 100 but the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy.

I believe it's actually the opposite. Rents are capped under Rental 100 (there is a max rental rate on East side and West side) whereas there is no equivalent cap under the AHCIRP.

You're correct that Rental 100 rents are initially 'affordable' with a guideline set on the first rent paid by new tenants. This allows the developer to get the lower parking requirements and excused CACs and DCL payments. Under the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy it's less clear that they have to meet a rent limit. However, if you look at the rezoning report for an earlier approved rental project on the east side near Commercial Drive, the same rent limit requirements were applied for the scheme to receive the DCL waiver.

So it looks as if the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy added potential home ownership schemes, and extended the locations that Rental 100 type schemes might be permitted, but at least in the project approved last year the same affordability requirements were used for the initial rents.

phesto · #**702** Posted **Oct 12, 2017, 8:05 PM**

^Interesting. Thanks!

GenWhy? · #**703** Posted **Oct 12, 2017, 10:14 PM**

Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy

Policy Goals: Offer 100% rental units, or sold at 20% below market value.

Hence my mix up.

"How Rental 100 works
This policy encourages projects where 100 per cent of the residential rental housing units are secured for 60 years or life of the building, whichever is greater. Eligible incentives include:
Development cost levy (DCL) waiver
Parking requirement reductions
Relaxation of unit size to 320 square feet (provided the design and location meet the City’s liveability criteria)
Additional density beyond what is available under existing zoning (for projects requiring a rezoning)
Concurrent processing (for projects requiring a rezoning)"

Feathered Friend · #**704** Posted **Oct 17, 2017, 8:39 PM**

Here's some info I picked up on 8242 Oak Street.

Apparently the project was going to be a passive home, but pressure from the community to reduce the unit count made that unviable. Looking at the area plan, it'll be one of the tallest allowed along Oak Street in Marpole. The staff report shows a ludicrous comment from a comment form submitted at the open house: " There was also a concern about building balconies and the potential for items to be thrown or to fall from balconies." This project and the Dunbar Ryerson Church project are both up at the public hearing tonight, and I hope/expect they'll both pass.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**705** Posted **Oct 17, 2017, 8:56 PM**

so they build 8 floors on Oak, with no rapid transit, but they build 6 on Cambie, with rapid transit. uhh... that makes sense

Feathered Friend · #**706** Posted **Oct 19, 2017, 4:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

This project shares the same applicant team as 339 E 1st Ave. Two projects, two different results. 425 W 6th was the unlucky one of the pair, as it failed to make it past today's panel.

First, some tidbits about the project. It was originally proposed as taller, but being limited by FSR, the team went for less floors but larger plates. The site is affected not only by a view cone, but by view point K which essentially is a reverse view cone enforcing a view of City Hall (the more you learn, the more you hate). The public bike share on Yukon and the lane was a decision of the design team, and went against the advice from city engineers who wanted it at Yukon and 6th. The steel trusses framing isn't architectural, but was meant for the public realm to reflect the history of the old Cambie Bridge.

The hate that flowed from UDP was united, and all encompassing. While they supported that the project should be at least this tall, it was felt that the "canary yellow" section should be scrapped, and the building made taller. The viability of the site demanded a stronger architecture form, more sensitivity to it's facades, better proportioning, and a stronger structural expression. The public realm required a big improvement, particularly with regards to the lobby and bike share area. The location of the bike storage was supported, but a comment was that perhaps a bike elevator should be included.

Everyone recognized the importance and desperate need of more office space in the city, but that alone can't fulfill public realm requirements. I like this design, but I think the panelists made the right call, esp due to the public realm concerns.

csbvan · #**707** Posted **Oct 19, 2017, 11:33 AM**

I agree. I'm happy this is being proposed and like much of it, but I am not a fan of the yellow, and am happy to hear that the panel would like more height and, especially, an improved public realm.

BodomReaper · #**708** Posted **Oct 19, 2017, 5:25 PM**

Not sure I'm a fan of this project or the other one from the same team proposed on 1st. They both remind me of the Containers buildings on Terminal which just used a bunch of colors to distract from an underwhelming design.

Feathered Friend · #**709** Posted **Oct 20, 2017, 9:34 PM**

I'm not sure if this passed UDP or not, as by the time the agenda reached this point I felt unwell and left the meeting. However, I thought I would post these shots anyways. One other tidbit is that the project is a passive house.

csbvan · #**710** Posted **Oct 20, 2017, 9:54 PM**

Looks great.

GenWhy? · #**711** Posted **Oct 20, 2017, 10:17 PM**

First of many in that area in the years to come, and glad to see some nice design. Looks like a project I'm on in Point Grey... parking is the biggest killer for lots that size. The City is forcing our hand on an automated parking system, which is within our budget, but I'd hate to see parking crush cool little infill projects like these especially in areas like this. Rupert and Renfrew south of Grandview needs some love and some density. Would be nice to see these around 29th Ave Station.

GenWhy? · #**712** Posted **Oct 20, 2017, 10:25 PM**

Ah I just looked it up. The Rental 100 Program is great! Nice to see they were allowed 1 car share (= 5 parking spaces) and 1 accessible (= 2 spaces), even with the commercial component at-grade. I really want the City to drive that on-street parking is public, and that developers and business owners would like less parking and can make it work. Less parking minimums and street-orientated design will really help decreasing car use.

Wonder what the neighbours think... but I mean, the rezoning family unit project at 2715 12th Ave went through without a hitch.

GenWhy? · #**713** Posted **Oct 20, 2017, 10:29 PM**

Hmmm... I feel we tried a very VERY similar design to this one. The City isn't a fan of exterior walkways but I'm sure since it's rental they might be more willing, and the positioning of the core and stairwell is interesting, but works overall for the lightwells I guess.

whatnext · #**714** Posted **Oct 20, 2017, 11:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Ah I just looked it up. The Rental 100 Program is great! Nice to see they were allowed 1 car share (= 5 parking spaces) and 1 accessible (= 2 spaces), even with the commercial component at-grade. I really want the City to drive that on-street parking is public, and that developers and business owners would like less parking and can make it work. Less parking minimums and street-orientated design will really help decreasing car use.

Wonder what the neighbours think... but I mean, the rezoning family unit project at 2715 12th Ave went through without a hitch.

That all sounds great until you end up with a situation like London where every homes green space is paved to provide parking. Those who claim these new developments don't come with more cars are living in Fantasyland. Even projects like 60 W Cordova which are right downtown only work because there is tons of monthly parking available at the adjacent Woodwards Parkade.

logan5 · #**715** Posted **Oct 21, 2017, 7:50 AM**

...

Feathered Friend · #**716** Posted **Oct 22, 2017, 5:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

The project, apparently tired of the storms, put on a rain coat.

GenWhy? · #**717** Posted **Oct 22, 2017, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

That all sounds great until you end up with a situation like London where every homes green space is paved to provide parking. Those who claim these new developments don't come with more cars are living in Fantasyland. Even projects like 60 W Cordova which are right downtown only work because there is tons of monthly parking available at the adjacent Woodwards Parkade.

There is ample green space on the lot, for how big the lot is - quite small. Added is a treed boulevard on the Kitsilano Diversion, front lawns and porches, mandated by zoning setbacks, and a lawn and children's playground in the back. There is also 1 block away a school with field and greenspace. I think we're okay here.

Feathered Friend · #**718** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 3:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

My photos

BodomReaper · #**719** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 7:43 AM**

All this expensive shoring and foundation work for... a piddly suburban-density townhome project in the heart of our urban core. Sad.

GenWhy? · #**720** Posted **Oct 23, 2017, 4:54 PM**

They could have assembled the adjacent properties. Not much else unless you rezoning from the existing FM-1 zone, which calls for this style of development.