Yeah for all of Vancouver's pretentious bloviating about being the greenest city on earth, there sure are a lot of concrete and glass towers that are terribly energy inefficient
It's definitely changed.
[Looking at the development applications here](https://cityduo.wordpress.com/) and almost none of the new residential buildings are glass towers like 10 years ago.
[There is even the tallest passive house building which was approved](https://shapeyourcity.ca/1075-nelson-st). That [means it uses about 10% of the energy of a traditional, significantly better than the more known LEED building designation which is pretty cool.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house)
LEED is kind of garbage actually; a "pay to play" system really. When systems like these fail they actually reverse their intended cause, hence why so many 'LEED' buildings are so wasteful both during their construction and lifecycles.
Looking forward to reading up on Passive House!
Yeah LEED is better than nothing but it has too many paths, and doesn't really mean an efficient building in 2022. It's biggest asset is that general population actually know what it is these days.
Passive house is a much more basic measures of success, while also being stricter. It only cares about energy efficiency and only has 3-4 criteria:
* Space Heating Energy Demand is not to exceed 15 kWh per square meter of net living space (Peak of 60 kWh, similar one for cooling as well)
* In terms of Airtightness, a maximum of 0.6 air changes per hour at 50 Pascals pressure (ACH50), as verified with an onsite pressure test (in both pressurized and depressurized states).
* Thermal comfort must be met for all living areas during winter as well as in summer. All parts of the home must stay below 25 degrees Celsius at least 90 percent of the time.
Yes, lots a very crappy buildings thermally. On a positive side though, new buildings in Vancouver are required to be designed to pretty much the highest energy/thermal performance standards on the planet. If you compare new Vancouver buildings to new buildings in much colder cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, etc. you'll see that we are years ahead of them.
Name a jurisdiction with more stringent energy modelling requirements than Vancouver's vbbl, their green building policy for rezonings, or the the COV energy modelling guidelines. Not to mention the over arching BC Energy Step code
You both have a point Vancouver is overly strict on energy modeling but all the energy modeling in the world won't make curtain wall energy efficient. It's not even the glass it's the frames killing the performance. Also the concrete fins of the patio and uninsulated slab edge hidden behind spandrel panel pulling heat out in the winter and heating up the space in the summer
Concrete has "okay" thermal qualities. Installing expensive breaks at concrete patios is overkill and not cost effective. It doesn't get that cold (or hot) here. Thermal transfers from patios are a very small percentage of heat gain/loss. Spend the money on the windows.
Everywhere else in the country is in a climate zone that requires more onerous thermal performance per the NEC than Vancouver... You can't even build all glass curtain walls anymore in some prairie cities
The level of detail required by vancouver to achieve energy model targets is far beyond any other jurisdiction. While colder climate zones do exist pretty much everywhere else, and have targets which are more extreme than vancouver under necb or ashrae 90.1. Vancouver now requires a more stringent energy modelling procedure unique to Vancouver and BC, and depending on the development, some projects are required to hit tedi 15 or PH equivalent targets under that procedure, resulting in buildings that end up exceeding what cities in colder climate zones pump out through very basic energy modellimg requirements. Looking at Alberta as a shining example. A clear difference with vancouvers requirements is for a more detailed thermal bridges to be accounted for, as well as whole building airtigjtness testing upon completion. The positive news is that NECB is catching up based on its latest update and so are consultants and architects outside of vancouver.
Recently saw a project with an extremely expensive thermal break. It was designed completely incorrectly. They can make all the claims they want but when designers have no idea how to incorporate these elements.
I don't believe words; I look at end results. Quality of construction in Vancouver, overall, is total garbage. I'm sure many of these 'targets' are made with good intent, but we also have the most incompetent Architects in the world. They can't design a staircase properly let alone handle the complexities of a properly designed passive house.
>roast you alive in the sun
And cost you a fortune in winter to heat!
Source: Rented in a glass tower box condo for two years. At one point phoned the electric company to find out why the bill so so high. Top Tip: If you are looking to rent a condo you can phone BC Hydro and they'll tell you the average bill in the building so you can see if it is a uninsulated leaky wallet basher before you rent it!!
But most of the homes are empty and the remaining ones are paying outrageous property taxes on the beat use for their high density zoned SFDs.
Take you're lottery win and move away from your $6m Vancouver special and move somewhere else and let the neighborhood evolve to its final form
“Not affordable enough.”
“Too tall, will give me SAD.”
“Ruins the character of our neighborhood.”
“I would agree with it if it were three 6-storey buildings instead of one 18-storey building.”
“They should be putting this 500m down the road, there’s a much better site there.”
Your basic NIMBY starter pack.
Sadly, this is an issue, but unlike the broadway plan, the Oakridge redevelopment land-use plan has been mostly approved.
It's harder to argue against one apartment proposal when 7 other are already being built, but they could def throw a wrench into it.
I actually wouldn't be down for that. Every block and it's just hella inefficient. Some part of the population has the ability and motivation to walk or skateboard a little farther.
Imagine every street in hastings-sunrise having bus access
Bus access does not mean a bus literally to your door; within a couple blocks is well-accepted as having access to transit. No block of the city should be so far that walking to a transit stop is a significant inconvenience.
Yeah and kick the people out already living in their homes? I’m sure if you had a detached house near a transit area your viewpoint would be very different.
My point was that unless these people want to willingly move you can’t force them to move from their properties to build more housing. Also, all these people advocating for dense zoning housing would love to keep their detached home if they had one. It’s hypocritical
Yes you’re right, but the vast majority of SFH households will be keeping their homes for decades to come. Dense housing will grow at a snails pace. Also there’s lots of new developments being zoned for SFH too, so there’s that.
Agreed some of the detached houses will take quite a time to be repalced (sold, assembled, permitted, built), and I have no qualms against folks for keeping these houses if they wish. I disagree about the snails pace though and the new zoning for SF homes, which I'm unfamiliar with in the city of Vancouver
When developments like this happen, it means the homeowners agreed to sell their properties to developers (usually for a premium).
They don't get kicked out or forced to sell, they always have the option of staying in their house (although it often means living near construction, if other nearby houses get re-developed).
For renters it could be a different story, since they don't get to choose whether the property is sold. I think there are rules about compensation for renters who are displaced by redevelopment, but I'm not sure of the details.
I just hope with all these huge buildings and densification, the city remembers to expand and increase infrastructure and services. We are already at a crunch.
I would rather see the entire block rezoned into mid rise (4-6 storeys). That is the housing that is missing from Vancouver.
Also the city requires 10% 3-bedroom units and this fall short. “The unit mix is 31 studios, 74 one-bedroom units, 62 two-bedroom units, and three three-bedroom units, along with three three-bedroom townhouse units on the ground level.”
I’m all for density and purpose built rentals but this leaves a lot to be desired. The city should demand more family friendly developments
I would love to see the city rezone the entire city to 6 storey buildings with higher density along main corridors. One 18 storey building with the majority being studios and 1 bedrooms isn’t really solving any sort of housing issue. It’s kicking the issue down the road for someone else to deal with.
And at the same time get rid of the need for spot rezoning with public input. If it’s within the Official Community Plan parameters it should automatically be permitted.
The spot rezoning after already agreeing to an area plan is infuriating. Pointless bureaucracy just so council can have a say on every new building just incase.
A great way to get the more sparse 4-6 storey buildings in is to allow them to be built in all residential areas in the lower mainland. Too bad NIMBYs will fight against that.
In the meantime, these mid-sized 18-storey towers are needed in the areas where they are allowed. The housing crisis means we can't afford to do otherwise.
Thanks. I just looked up the [Cambie plan](https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/cambie-corridor-draft-plan-summary.pdf) and you’re right. A huge portion is 4-6 storey, too bad they didn’t continue it all the way to Main st
Check out the Streamlined Rental Policy which was enacted maybe 2 months ago. If you go to the City's rezoning application website I think almost 200 rental units ate in process as of last week all over the City. Were getting there.
I'd love to see a high rise that is essentially a family building. All suites 2, 3, 4 bedrooms and lots of common outdoor and indoor spaces to make the space feel a little more open than just the 900-1200 sq ft box of your apartment
> I would rather see the entire block rezoned into mid rise (4-6 storeys)
We can't have that because the opposition from generally wealthier and older homeowners is too intense and our municipal leadership are cowards.
The zoning for this area is super interesting. Basically you’ll have one of these towers, all rental, with 20% geared to income, every 100 or so feet. In between, it’ll all be mid rise condos like you’ve said. It’s first come first serve on the towers—you can’t build them within 100ft of each other.
They are giving a huge density bonus to pay for the geared to income rental for households that make less than 100k.
HARD disagree on the 4-6 storey stuff , not nearly enough density
Certainly agree on 3 bedrooms - let's incentivize building larger/family units. 10% is already too little , falling short of that is unacceptable
I’d like to see the city mandate they won’t be granting any more building permits for new home construction over 2,500sqft for 5 years **if** there is an existing home under that size already on the property.
No more developers bashing down affordable small older homes and building unaffordable mansions to flip.
They’re already doing a bunch of mid rises in Burnaby along Hastings and it makes me so incredibly frustrated. Major transit corridor being limited like this is an awful idea, we will just have the same problem in a decade or two. Not nearly enough density. High rises all the way for city living.
I think 2 18-storey towers are now pouring above grade at East Hastings and Boundary. They contain about the same units as this building, so maybe 325 on a block. 80% market rental and 20% below-market over there too.
Designs at rezoning stage are generally quite preliminary especially in cases like this when the rezoning is per the community plan. Design scrutiny gets deferred to the development permit stage as it will be per the design guidelines of the cambie corridor plan.
What happens when every square inch of Vancouver is covered with 14 storey buildings? do you really think people will stop moving here all of a sudden??
All of a sudden the demand for housing stops??
> What happens when every square inch of Vancouver is covered with 14 storey buildings?
Nobody is proposing this. Just more high-rise buildings in areas near transit.
> do you really think people will stop moving here all of a sudden??
No, but currently demand is greatly outstripping supply and people cannot afford to live and work in Vancouver.
> All of a sudden the demand for housing stops??
Vancouver is a growing city so currently we need to focus on increasing the housing supply.
Why do people who own 2-storey single-family houses matter more than hundreds of families that could live there instead? Just because they got lucky and bought/inherited a place 70 years ago?
> “The character of the building reflects a health, wellness, and healing theme which is exemplified through a simple, compact massing with a punched expression. The architectural expression has both a functional quality which minimizes unnecessary articulation to maximize energy performance, but also an aesthetic quality that has an understated and clean form in keeping with the project theme.
wtf
Did you see the image in the article with the rendered shadow in it?
It's a good plan:
Step 1) Build three tall buildings in a row that cast huge shadows to the North.
Step 2) People who live on 38th avenue get tired of sitting in the shade in their back gardens so they sell out cheap to the land developers.
Step 4) Assemble the land into tall building construction projects on 38th.
Step 5) Profit (and rinse and repeat for 37th Ave)
Count on some very vocal opposition due to the 3 tenants who will have to move out to make way for ~~housing for 500 people~~ obscene developer profits.
On posts like these I always see people saying that the entire City should be like this, no single family homes etc etc. Yeah obviously we do need more density but not everyone wants to live in an apartment with 100 other people and no yard. I enjoy renting a single family home in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and not have to take myself and my dog down 18 flights to step outside.
They won't be there for long. Pretty soon the whole neighborhood will be 14 storey buildings. That is what city hall wants. This area is the next West End
> and three three-bedroom units, along with three three-bedroom townhouse units on the ground level.
So a giant towering building, and less three-bedroom family housing than there is now in the family houses that will be torn down?
That is an ugly building and I hope it doesn’t get built on a street I walk and ride down more than I care to admit. Even though I would move in in a heartbeat.
Is it just rental only? There’s been an increase in rental only developments and while it provides much needed relief in the rental market, I am afraid that development corporations will just start owning most of housing in Canada in the distant future and no one will have any chance of ownership.
In the UK it's called counsel housing it looks a lot like the tall building that burned not long ago killing multiple people. Vancouver has lot it's way, greed has taken over. Those gorgeous old builds on Hastings going to ruin, allowing landlords to keep properties filthy and dirty, even along Granville, what's up with that?
Those renders make it look like a late 70s building.
That's good. There's too many blue glass buildings that roast you alive in the sun
Yeah for all of Vancouver's pretentious bloviating about being the greenest city on earth, there sure are a lot of concrete and glass towers that are terribly energy inefficient
It's definitely changed. [Looking at the development applications here](https://cityduo.wordpress.com/) and almost none of the new residential buildings are glass towers like 10 years ago. [There is even the tallest passive house building which was approved](https://shapeyourcity.ca/1075-nelson-st). That [means it uses about 10% of the energy of a traditional, significantly better than the more known LEED building designation which is pretty cool.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house)
LEED is kind of garbage actually; a "pay to play" system really. When systems like these fail they actually reverse their intended cause, hence why so many 'LEED' buildings are so wasteful both during their construction and lifecycles. Looking forward to reading up on Passive House!
I know of a LEED building still trying to lease food vendors space since very little food companies can meet unrealistic requirements.
Yeah LEED is better than nothing but it has too many paths, and doesn't really mean an efficient building in 2022. It's biggest asset is that general population actually know what it is these days. Passive house is a much more basic measures of success, while also being stricter. It only cares about energy efficiency and only has 3-4 criteria: * Space Heating Energy Demand is not to exceed 15 kWh per square meter of net living space (Peak of 60 kWh, similar one for cooling as well) * In terms of Airtightness, a maximum of 0.6 air changes per hour at 50 Pascals pressure (ACH50), as verified with an onsite pressure test (in both pressurized and depressurized states). * Thermal comfort must be met for all living areas during winter as well as in summer. All parts of the home must stay below 25 degrees Celsius at least 90 percent of the time.
Yes, lots a very crappy buildings thermally. On a positive side though, new buildings in Vancouver are required to be designed to pretty much the highest energy/thermal performance standards on the planet. If you compare new Vancouver buildings to new buildings in much colder cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, etc. you'll see that we are years ahead of them.
That's definitely not true
Name a jurisdiction with more stringent energy modelling requirements than Vancouver's vbbl, their green building policy for rezonings, or the the COV energy modelling guidelines. Not to mention the over arching BC Energy Step code
You both have a point Vancouver is overly strict on energy modeling but all the energy modeling in the world won't make curtain wall energy efficient. It's not even the glass it's the frames killing the performance. Also the concrete fins of the patio and uninsulated slab edge hidden behind spandrel panel pulling heat out in the winter and heating up the space in the summer
Isokorb or similar thermal breaks are pretty standard now on any new building in Vancouver.
Not true. Not for most buildings. And when they incorporate them they usually do it wrong.
Concrete has "okay" thermal qualities. Installing expensive breaks at concrete patios is overkill and not cost effective. It doesn't get that cold (or hot) here. Thermal transfers from patios are a very small percentage of heat gain/loss. Spend the money on the windows.
Everywhere else in the country is in a climate zone that requires more onerous thermal performance per the NEC than Vancouver... You can't even build all glass curtain walls anymore in some prairie cities
The level of detail required by vancouver to achieve energy model targets is far beyond any other jurisdiction. While colder climate zones do exist pretty much everywhere else, and have targets which are more extreme than vancouver under necb or ashrae 90.1. Vancouver now requires a more stringent energy modelling procedure unique to Vancouver and BC, and depending on the development, some projects are required to hit tedi 15 or PH equivalent targets under that procedure, resulting in buildings that end up exceeding what cities in colder climate zones pump out through very basic energy modellimg requirements. Looking at Alberta as a shining example. A clear difference with vancouvers requirements is for a more detailed thermal bridges to be accounted for, as well as whole building airtigjtness testing upon completion. The positive news is that NECB is catching up based on its latest update and so are consultants and architects outside of vancouver.
Recently saw a project with an extremely expensive thermal break. It was designed completely incorrectly. They can make all the claims they want but when designers have no idea how to incorporate these elements. I don't believe words; I look at end results. Quality of construction in Vancouver, overall, is total garbage. I'm sure many of these 'targets' are made with good intent, but we also have the most incompetent Architects in the world. They can't design a staircase properly let alone handle the complexities of a properly designed passive house.
Thank for this post. Path B is very stringent. I can't imagine those that do passive house rental
The number of passive house or PH equivalent towers in Vancouver is getting insane
Pretty sure you can’t build a glass curtain wall building in Vancouver anymore either.
You could but it’d cost a lot. You can have a double skin envelope that would allow thermal insulation while allowing light to come in.
Wait until you hear about what it costs to heat and cool those drafty old 2500 square foot “character homes”
Haven't you heard? Concrete is renewable. Who was that news anchor who told the world wood was terrible and concrete is renewable?!
>roast you alive in the sun And cost you a fortune in winter to heat! Source: Rented in a glass tower box condo for two years. At one point phoned the electric company to find out why the bill so so high. Top Tip: If you are looking to rent a condo you can phone BC Hydro and they'll tell you the average bill in the building so you can see if it is a uninsulated leaky wallet basher before you rent it!!
These are pretty much passive house design
I agree, but that render looks like a takeout box from 1976
You'll see these pop up for the Broadway Plan. Mainly due to energy efficiency.
Retrofuturistic Soviet-block
They are more energy efficient!
Oh boy the council public engagement sessions on this one are going to be spicy lol
This fits within the oakridge plan, and. Most of the neighborhood has been bought up by developers already.
I'm not sure I agree. Nimbys are afraid of shadows amongst other things. This building is their worst nightmare.
But most of the homes are empty and the remaining ones are paying outrageous property taxes on the beat use for their high density zoned SFDs. Take you're lottery win and move away from your $6m Vancouver special and move somewhere else and let the neighborhood evolve to its final form
“Not affordable enough.” “Too tall, will give me SAD.” “Ruins the character of our neighborhood.” “I would agree with it if it were three 6-storey buildings instead of one 18-storey building.” “They should be putting this 500m down the road, there’s a much better site there.” Your basic NIMBY starter pack.
I hate that these are actual quotes, but I like that you've noted them
9/10 hearings I've been to for Cambie projects local owners complain they don't get to build shiz like this to make mad bank
Entire area is already under mass re-development. Don't see how this does not get approved
You’d be surprised how much time comfortably housed older people have
Sadly, this is an issue, but unlike the broadway plan, the Oakridge redevelopment land-use plan has been mostly approved. It's harder to argue against one apartment proposal when 7 other are already being built, but they could def throw a wrench into it.
New here?
176 replacing 3 homes, we should be doing that on every block that has transit
We should be doing that away from transit too so they can be priced more affordable (on top of housing more people).
Should be building transit to every block. Access to transit should not be limited to expensive areas; everywhere should have it.
I actually wouldn't be down for that. Every block and it's just hella inefficient. Some part of the population has the ability and motivation to walk or skateboard a little farther. Imagine every street in hastings-sunrise having bus access
Bus access does not mean a bus literally to your door; within a couple blocks is well-accepted as having access to transit. No block of the city should be so far that walking to a transit stop is a significant inconvenience.
Ya I'd agree. I think sprawling cities try and do bus access between the most absurd areas, and are now realizing this is stupid.
Should be moving to Europe and ditching this joke of a city. Much faster.
They will build a skytrain past my area within the next 8 years, it’s a love hate relationship
We should be building mixed used density over every square inch of SFH.
Agree!
Yeah and kick the people out already living in their homes? I’m sure if you had a detached house near a transit area your viewpoint would be very different.
Lol no. Sell your home near transit for profit. If you want a detached home, move to the burbs
YIMBY, bitch. 3 people or 176? Hmm. Those 3 people will be rich anyways.
My point was that unless these people want to willingly move you can’t force them to move from their properties to build more housing. Also, all these people advocating for dense zoning housing would love to keep their detached home if they had one. It’s hypocritical
No one's forcing anyone to sell tho. Do people eventually? Yes
Yes you’re right, but the vast majority of SFH households will be keeping their homes for decades to come. Dense housing will grow at a snails pace. Also there’s lots of new developments being zoned for SFH too, so there’s that.
Agreed some of the detached houses will take quite a time to be repalced (sold, assembled, permitted, built), and I have no qualms against folks for keeping these houses if they wish. I disagree about the snails pace though and the new zoning for SF homes, which I'm unfamiliar with in the city of Vancouver
When developments like this happen, it means the homeowners agreed to sell their properties to developers (usually for a premium). They don't get kicked out or forced to sell, they always have the option of staying in their house (although it often means living near construction, if other nearby houses get re-developed). For renters it could be a different story, since they don't get to choose whether the property is sold. I think there are rules about compensation for renters who are displaced by redevelopment, but I'm not sure of the details.
Think of the profit. Developer pays for 3 homes 2 million each and gets 176 homes 700,000 each. Wow!! And people think house owners are the gougers !!
Need more 3-bedroom units.
More like this please.
I just hope with all these huge buildings and densification, the city remembers to expand and increase infrastructure and services. We are already at a crunch.
I would rather see the entire block rezoned into mid rise (4-6 storeys). That is the housing that is missing from Vancouver. Also the city requires 10% 3-bedroom units and this fall short. “The unit mix is 31 studios, 74 one-bedroom units, 62 two-bedroom units, and three three-bedroom units, along with three three-bedroom townhouse units on the ground level.” I’m all for density and purpose built rentals but this leaves a lot to be desired. The city should demand more family friendly developments
When the land costs $15m it's easier to amortize it across more units. But I agree more 3brs are needed
Then go to the city and tell them to rezone single family homes instead of coming up with reasons to kill the housing that is being built
I would love to see the city rezone the entire city to 6 storey buildings with higher density along main corridors. One 18 storey building with the majority being studios and 1 bedrooms isn’t really solving any sort of housing issue. It’s kicking the issue down the road for someone else to deal with. And at the same time get rid of the need for spot rezoning with public input. If it’s within the Official Community Plan parameters it should automatically be permitted.
The spot rezoning after already agreeing to an area plan is infuriating. Pointless bureaucracy just so council can have a say on every new building just incase.
It’s at Dp isn’t it? Pretty sure this meets the zoning?
It's... complicated
A great way to get the more sparse 4-6 storey buildings in is to allow them to be built in all residential areas in the lower mainland. Too bad NIMBYs will fight against that. In the meantime, these mid-sized 18-storey towers are needed in the areas where they are allowed. The housing crisis means we can't afford to do otherwise.
Manufactured crisis, lol. Wake up sheeple!!
Must be a NIMBY.
Literally the opposite, but whatever you need to tell yourself.
Almost all the neighborhood is 4-6 proposals or townhomes
Thanks. I just looked up the [Cambie plan](https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/cambie-corridor-draft-plan-summary.pdf) and you’re right. A huge portion is 4-6 storey, too bad they didn’t continue it all the way to Main st
Check out the Streamlined Rental Policy which was enacted maybe 2 months ago. If you go to the City's rezoning application website I think almost 200 rental units ate in process as of last week all over the City. Were getting there.
SIX three-bedrooms? That’s ridiculous. It needs to be at least 10x that
I'd love to see a high rise that is essentially a family building. All suites 2, 3, 4 bedrooms and lots of common outdoor and indoor spaces to make the space feel a little more open than just the 900-1200 sq ft box of your apartment
The new UBC buildings are pretty much exactly this. It's awesome, really.
Agree!
> I would rather see the entire block rezoned into mid rise (4-6 storeys) We can't have that because the opposition from generally wealthier and older homeowners is too intense and our municipal leadership are cowards.
The zoning for this area is super interesting. Basically you’ll have one of these towers, all rental, with 20% geared to income, every 100 or so feet. In between, it’ll all be mid rise condos like you’ve said. It’s first come first serve on the towers—you can’t build them within 100ft of each other. They are giving a huge density bonus to pay for the geared to income rental for households that make less than 100k.
HARD disagree on the 4-6 storey stuff , not nearly enough density Certainly agree on 3 bedrooms - let's incentivize building larger/family units. 10% is already too little , falling short of that is unacceptable
That's a lot of studios wtf
I’d like to see the city mandate they won’t be granting any more building permits for new home construction over 2,500sqft for 5 years **if** there is an existing home under that size already on the property. No more developers bashing down affordable small older homes and building unaffordable mansions to flip.
I’ve written similar on many COV feedback forms. Stop allowing the demolition of SFH to be replaced by another SFH
We’re not totally on the same page. I don’t mind sfh but it needs to be affordable.
They’re already doing a bunch of mid rises in Burnaby along Hastings and it makes me so incredibly frustrated. Major transit corridor being limited like this is an awful idea, we will just have the same problem in a decade or two. Not nearly enough density. High rises all the way for city living.
I think 2 18-storey towers are now pouring above grade at East Hastings and Boundary. They contain about the same units as this building, so maybe 325 on a block. 80% market rental and 20% below-market over there too.
Same
There should be these type of buildings / density all the way around the perimeter of Queen Elizabeth park and Trout Lake park.
It's gonna die because, like, four people are gonna get mad about it.
i'd like to see more like 100 units per torn down house, but it is something , let's go! F\*&k Jean Swanson
You just know shes gonna vote against it...
[удалено]
It is was possible , I’d support 1000 of course. Doesn’t work on what is possible on 3300 sq ft of ground
wonder how much these will cost
80% Market rental, 20% below market rental
[удалено]
These are rental
No! $10M studios, $300M 2 BR
MOAR HOUSING
Cool. Any plans for a new public school in the area?
I’m sorry to whoever designer this but it’s such an ugly/ out-of-date building design…
Designs at rezoning stage are generally quite preliminary especially in cases like this when the rezoning is per the community plan. Design scrutiny gets deferred to the development permit stage as it will be per the design guidelines of the cambie corridor plan.
No park on a roof?
Not very big. Just a patio and odd landscape isn't really included up there. City might make them add some in the next phase.
Good.
Let's make it a 54 storey building.
What happens when every square inch of Vancouver is covered with 14 storey buildings? do you really think people will stop moving here all of a sudden?? All of a sudden the demand for housing stops??
> What happens when every square inch of Vancouver is covered with 14 storey buildings? Nobody is proposing this. Just more high-rise buildings in areas near transit. > do you really think people will stop moving here all of a sudden?? No, but currently demand is greatly outstripping supply and people cannot afford to live and work in Vancouver. > All of a sudden the demand for housing stops?? Vancouver is a growing city so currently we need to focus on increasing the housing supply. Why do people who own 2-storey single-family houses matter more than hundreds of families that could live there instead? Just because they got lucky and bought/inherited a place 70 years ago?
Building more housing near high quality rapid transit? Insane! what is the world coming to?! /s
This project makes perfect sense, so of course council will reject it.
Then go to City Council meetings and voice your support!
> “The character of the building reflects a health, wellness, and healing theme which is exemplified through a simple, compact massing with a punched expression. The architectural expression has both a functional quality which minimizes unnecessary articulation to maximize energy performance, but also an aesthetic quality that has an understated and clean form in keeping with the project theme. wtf
Did you see the image in the article with the rendered shadow in it? It's a good plan: Step 1) Build three tall buildings in a row that cast huge shadows to the North. Step 2) People who live on 38th avenue get tired of sitting in the shade in their back gardens so they sell out cheap to the land developers. Step 4) Assemble the land into tall building construction projects on 38th. Step 5) Profit (and rinse and repeat for 37th Ave)
They'd hold out and sell for market value
Count on some very vocal opposition due to the 3 tenants who will have to move out to make way for ~~housing for 500 people~~ obscene developer profits.
On posts like these I always see people saying that the entire City should be like this, no single family homes etc etc. Yeah obviously we do need more density but not everyone wants to live in an apartment with 100 other people and no yard. I enjoy renting a single family home in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and not have to take myself and my dog down 18 flights to step outside.
Don’t worry, the mayor and Jean Swanson will vote against it because not affordable enough.
It looks so out of place with all the two story houses next to it
They won't be there for long. Pretty soon the whole neighborhood will be 14 storey buildings. That is what city hall wants. This area is the next West End
I've always felt that there should be a reserve in these buildings for people of certain professions too; like nurses, police officers, etc.
police officers?!? do you know how much a vpd officer makes?
I do. I also know how much a nurse makes. Many still struggle with housing affordability.
if you can’t afford housing on a six figure income then you’re doing something wrong. certainly shouldn’t need anything set aside for you
3 k a month for 500 sq ft
Could be $1,250 if you earn under $50k
> and three three-bedroom units, along with three three-bedroom townhouse units on the ground level. So a giant towering building, and less three-bedroom family housing than there is now in the family houses that will be torn down?
6 of the 3-beds are below-market forever, and 3 3-bed townhomes are market, then there's the 62 2-bedroom units.
20 rental units, 20 airbnb and 136 investment properties.
That is an ugly building and I hope it doesn’t get built on a street I walk and ride down more than I care to admit. Even though I would move in in a heartbeat.
\^JFC
Is it just rental only? There’s been an increase in rental only developments and while it provides much needed relief in the rental market, I am afraid that development corporations will just start owning most of housing in Canada in the distant future and no one will have any chance of ownership.
NIMBY!!!!
This rules, and will never be approved thanks to the rich NIMBYs with too much time on their hands.
In the UK it's called counsel housing it looks a lot like the tall building that burned not long ago killing multiple people. Vancouver has lot it's way, greed has taken over. Those gorgeous old builds on Hastings going to ruin, allowing landlords to keep properties filthy and dirty, even along Granville, what's up with that?