City of Vancouver ODP

[GenWhy?]

Aw man I forgot about Brian's weird imaginary conversations with his son

[idunno]

It's so bizarre. My favourite was his "conversation with Vancouver" --

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2022/07/12/palmquist63-vancouver-crying-afraid-dying/

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

This is even better.. Brian Palmquist



https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2026...e-the-village-idiots-17-villages-july14/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can build a duplex or something less dense if you want to, right? When has a zoning change or area plan ever restricted the less intense uses? Are they just straight up lying here?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can build a duplex or something less dense if you want to, right? When has a zoning change or area plan ever restricted the less intense uses? Are they just straight up lying here?

I think the new District Schedules (C-2A, C-2D, C-2E) only allow the following:
- Dwelling Uses existing as of [force and effect date], except Mixed-Use Residential Building and Principal Dwelling Unit with Lock-Off Unit
- Mixed-Use Residential Building
- Principal Dwelling Unit with Lock-Off Unit
https://council.vancouver.ca/20260714/documents/phea1d_draft_ZD.pdf

And I think Josh White confirmed this in his June 23 Memo, which makes sense to require retail on lots you're trying to get retail built on, which is almost identical to how our "C" zones are written. It would defeat the purpose to permit multiplexes on lots the City is pursuing retail.

The main difference here is that this is the rare recent case that the zone is changed by the City. Previously you'd continue to have the old zone (R1 etc) and build like a multiplex until you change the zoning. I have not read the frontage minimums and that would be the real project killer, again. So you could keep your house and renovate it and stuff but not profit off it for single-lot residential redevelopment (which is what some folks are getting made about - limiting the redevelopment potential) - it would make sense to permit the old R1 rules for at least a laneway home.

"Staff recommend ground-floor retail requirements in retail expansion areas to promote viable opportunities for new businesses and to help achieve Village Plan objectives of walkability and completeness. Allowing new residential-only buildings on commercial high streets would have long-term impacts on business viability and therefore would weaken walkability, community identity and opportunities for social connection in Villages. "

https://council.vancouver.ca/20260714/documents/phea1_memo.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by idunno

It's so bizarre. My favourite was his "conversation with Vancouver" --

https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2022/07/12/palmquist63-vancouver-crying-afraid-dying/

... Dafuq.

... those empty concrete buildings competing with the eagles who are meant to soar the highest?”

Is "she" talking about Stanley Park, Vanier, or Pacific Spirit? Those are the only three places I know on the West Side where you can see eagles; the endless lookalike detached homes and occasional trees do not cut it for them.

It's always weird when NIMBYs hallucinate out loud: they're surrounded by tens of thousands of people on all four sides, but you'd think they were living in a Tragically Hip song.

[Glow Fun City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

... Dafuq.
Is "she" talking about Stanley Park, Vanier, or Pacific Spirit? Those are the only three places I know on the West Side where you can see eagles; the endless lookalike detached homes and occasional trees do not cut it for them.

I’ve seen eagles from my living room window… you just have to keep an eye out for them

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

... Dafuq.



Is "she" talking about Stanley Park, Vanier, or Pacific Spirit? Those are the only three places I know on the West Side where you can see eagles; the endless lookalike detached homes and occasional trees do not cut it for them.

It's always weird when NIMBYs hallucinate out loud: they're surrounded by tens of thousands of people on all four sides, but you'd think they were living in a Tragically Hip song.

Uh, one thing the West Side of Vancouver is not is endless lookalike detached homes and occasional trees. Were you confusing it with Coquitlam?

[jollyburger]

So what she can't adopt another 17 more kids? Mrs. Vancouver sounds lazy.

[Wooster]

Out of curiosity, anyone here planning in speaking at public hearing?

[Migrant_Coconut]

I've already sent my comments online. Don't really see the point in going in person.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Uh, one thing the West Side of Vancouver is not is endless lookalike detached homes and occasional trees. Were you confusing it with Coquitlam?

Literally what is the difference between a random block in Point Grey, a random block in Kerrisdale or a random block in west Kitsilano? And how would either one be considered a "forest" like the op-ed would like you to believe it is?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think the new District Schedules (C-2A, C-2D, C-2E) only allow the following:
- Dwelling Uses existing as of [force and effect date], except Mixed-Use Residential Building and Principal Dwelling Unit with Lock-Off Unit
- Mixed-Use Residential Building
- Principal Dwelling Unit with Lock-Off Unit
https://council.vancouver.ca/20260714/documents/phea1d_draft_ZD.pdf

And I think Josh White confirmed this in his June 23 Memo, which makes sense to require retail on lots you're trying to get retail built on, which is almost identical to how our "C" zones are written. It would defeat the purpose to permit multiplexes on lots the City is pursuing retail.

The main difference here is that this is the rare recent case that the zone is changed by the City. Previously you'd continue to have the old zone (R1 etc) and build like a multiplex until you change the zoning. I have not read the frontage minimums and that would be the real project killer, again. So you could keep your house and renovate it and stuff but not profit off it for single-lot residential redevelopment (which is what some folks are getting made about - limiting the redevelopment potential) - it would make sense to permit the old R1 rules for at least a laneway home.

"Staff recommend ground-floor retail requirements in retail expansion areas to promote viable opportunities for new businesses and to help achieve Village Plan objectives of walkability and completeness. Allowing new residential-only buildings on commercial high streets would have long-term impacts on business viability and therefore would weaken walkability, community identity and opportunities for social connection in Villages. "

https://council.vancouver.ca/20260714/documents/phea1_memo.pdf

Hm I wasn't aware this was the policy. I've always been a deregulation supply guy so I like where they're going with some of this, but I'd be pretty upset if I owned a house in the newly rezoned commercial and it burned down and I was banned from rebuilding the house I formerly had. IMO city-initiated zoning should always grandfather in the existing allowed structures. I wasn't entirely keen on the multiplex rezoning limiting SFH FSR either. My current property is just outside one of these villages and we were considering redevelopment. Thankfully this hasn't put a thorn in our side.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Literally what is the difference between a random block in Point Grey, a random block in Kerrisdale or a random block in west Kitsilano? And how would either one be considered a "forest" like the op-ed would like you to believe it is?

You’re more likely to find sidewalks missing in Point Grey.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Hm I wasn't aware this was the policy. I've always been a deregulation supply guy so I like where they're going with some of this, but I'd be pretty upset if I owned a house in the newly rezoned commercial and it burned down and I was banned from rebuilding the house I formerly had. IMO city-initiated zoning should always grandfather in the existing allowed structures. I wasn't entirely keen on the multiplex rezoning limiting SFH FSR either. My current property is just outside one of these villages and we were considering redevelopment. Thankfully this hasn't put a thorn in our side.

The wording appears to include the ability for one to rebuild what is currently on site at the time of the new zoning being put in place. Similar language is present in the current "C" zones, which allows you to build purely residential (detached, duplex, multiple conversion, etc) "existing as of "x" date".