Perspective: The Kingsway & Broadway Redevelopment
January 31st, 2012 | Mainly Main Magazine
In light of the recent debate regarding the construction of a new development at Kingsway & Broadway, we’ve asked both the Residents Association of Mount Pleasant (RAMP) and Rize Alliance Properties to weigh-in. Here is their response:
RAMP Vancouver
Mount Pleasant residents are concerned about a nineteen-story condominium tower under consideration for the South-West corner of Broadway and Kingsway. If City Hall approves the project, the face of Mount Pleasant will be changed significantly.What exactly can we expect if this large development is allowed to be built? It’s likely that property taxes and rents will increase. It’s possible people will be displaced. It will affect the bike route, by increasing car and truck traffic on 10th Avenue between Main and Kingsway. It will also set a precedent for what is built on two other large parcels in Mount Pleasant which may be redeveloped within the relatively near future: Kingsgate Mall and the IGA mall.Over the past three years, City Hall has been granting real-estate developer requests to increase the height and density that can be built to on certain sites throughout the City. Vancouver is a growing City and needs to make room for new residents. This means density, and room for more people, but it has also been leading to gentrification.Despite having opened up to new supposedly denser condos for some time however, according to the most recent census data, Mount Pleasant has been shrinking. From 2001 to 2006 the neighbourhood shrunk by 4% as the rest of the City grew by almost 6%, which is significant. The decrease could be because existing rental buildings, with families living in overcrowded situations, are being displaced by new stratas, which often only have one person living in them. The number of one-person households has been increasing in Mount Pleasant for years. Affordable rental units that house more people are being replaced with one and two bedroom market priced condominiums.There are many working class and immigrant families who live here. Usually they live in the purpose built, affordable rental. They are the diversity that makes Mount Pleasant livelier than much of the rest of the city. There are a wide variety of restaurants, people are always out on the street, and most of the businesses are still independent, small, and family run.
But many retail spaces are sitting empty along Main Street. Happy Bats, a Main Street favourite, has gone out of business because of high rents. Other businesses have followed suit. It could be that property owners are waiting for new, more expensive businesses to come to the neighbourhood, instead of signing a lease with a business that can’t afford to pay high rents.
To build the project, bylaws state the developer has to give back to the neighbourhood in the form of ‘community amenity contributions’. In the most recent proposal, the amenities were market rental and artists space. Neither are guaranteed to be affordable to current Mount Pleasant residents.
The development on Broadway and Kingsway will set a precedent for our ever changing neighbourhood. It is representative of the types of developers that are trying to build in Mount Pleasant. Whether or not these projects get built in the form they are proposed depends on the action of neighbourhood residents, and the responsiveness of municipal politicians.
Chris Vollan – Rize Alliance Properties
Rize stepped into Mount Pleasant in 2007, purchasing a parcel of land at the corner of Kingsway and Broadway and expanded in 2009 with the purchase and completion of the new OnQue building at Quebec and Broadway. We are happy to say we have 48 new homeowners and renters, and are soon to have three business owners, who are all excited to be living and working in Mount Pleasant.
New buildings, such as our OnQue project and the proposed rezoning of our Kingsway and Broadway site represent change, and are part of a long history of growth and change in Mount Pleasant. In talking with our neighbours, the theme of change and evolution of the neighbourhood is consistent and regarded with a mixture of anticipation, excitement and sometimes, trepidation. Developer Herbert Lee anticipated huge change for Mount Pleasant when he started construction on the Lee Building at Broadway and Main 100 years ago; banking that “Hilltown” would become an upscale and fashionable district. His vision, and that of many others who have built homes, apartments and businesses in Mount Pleasant, combined with those wanting to live and work here, has been a constant force of evolution and change and brings us to the unique community we know today.
Mount Pleasant is a very “in demand” place, with many Vancouverites wanting to enjoy its unique personality, characteristics and amenities.
With the future likelihood of a fixed rail (LRT, subway or other) line along Broadway, the busiest transit corridor in the Americas, there is no better location within Metro Vancouver for appropriate density than the intersection of Kingsway and Broadway. People want to live in Mount Pleasant, and live sustainably in a neighbourhood that is walkable, with easy access to transit and city amenities.
Our work at Rize, as developers and homebuilders, is guided by city bylaws, good planning and architectural practice and, in the case of Mount Pleasant, the Mount Pleasant Community Plan. The plan recognizes only three large sites in Mount Pleasant as high density and as potential high-rise sites, with the provision of appropriate community contributions, and thus limits the remainder of Mount Pleasant to its predominately single family or low-rise multi-family forms. Towers at Kingsway and Broadway and Main and 13th are possible under the plan but will not be permitted elsewhere; acknowledging and preserving a unique Vancouver low-density condition (try and find a single family home within 5km of central Paris, Barcelona or New York).
Since embarking on the rezoning process in 2008, we have viewed our proposal for redevelopment of the corner bounded by Broadway, Kingsway, 10th and Watson as something which will benefit an evolving neighbourhood. We, in turn, have greatly benefited from the community plan process and public input, which have shaped our thoughts and the proposed development into something as unique as our neighbourhood.
For more information on our current rezoning proposal, please come visit our Community Information Centre at the old Cantu space (196 Kingsway at East 10th). We’d be happy to continue the discussion with you.
I think it is a real shame that this development has been hacked to pieces. If you look at the original design it was a much better more inspiring building. I have no idea why they put in the same covered walkway as the lee building. The covered walkway at the Lee Building is not pleasant, it stinks of urine and as a female I FEEL VERY UNSAFE walking underneath it at night. I would rather cross the street. If the same thing is implimented at kingsway and broadway it will be the same result, a place for homeless people to sleep, people to urinate and be generally shady. Also it is really bad for the retail spaces as they will be darker and have to deal with the alley way features, covered walkways like this create all over the world. The token 2 trees on broadway is also ridiculous and as final note Watson Street should be treated as a street at the moment it is car park entrance…. which is very visible to main street, at the moment. I believe, however this is not to with RIZE or ACTON OSTRY, but to the city planners and the process of involving the public in this design. From the original proposal which was good to some more of the mediocre architecture to come out of vancouver
Are we talking about the same Lee building? Are you serious? First of all, I have never smelled urine in the area, but I supposed that it’s possible with many drunk college kids using the B Line stop. Note I didn’t say homeless people, because frankly, I rarely see homeless people causing a scene in that area, but rather, kids heading out to party or heading back from a party at that stop. Second, your comment about the covered walkway being “UNSAFE” (caps yours) is laughable. You actually sound a little paranoid…did you reread your post? Is city living really for you?
I have smelled urine here numerous times and there are many street people
hanging out here day and night. Let’s get them off the street and build AFFORDABLE HOUSING
In his 2008 speech at Heritage Hall in Mount Pleasant, Gregor Robertson dissed ecodensity and touted community. One term later, he and his vision team have touted ecodensity and dissed community. “We have a great opportunity right now with the big shift in the political winds to do things differently at City Hall…about how we want to do things very differently. We want them to come bottom-up. We want the grassroots to have serious voice at City Hall.” Well, the grassroots are still waiting Gregor.
I’m not against density or development but I believe in density done well and development that respects a community and its community plan. RIZE is pushing for excessive height and density based on the fact that the Mount Pleasant Community Plan (MPCP) sees some opportunity for additional height and density. But does that automatically equal 7 times higher (19 stories) and 5½ times more dense (5.5 fsr) than what is currently allowed?! Can we not achieve that density under the current C-3A zoning? This rezoning proposal violates more points of the MPCP it supports and Council needs to know this.
“With new development, keep the neighborhood context always in mind. Also consider the residents themselves (along with service providers and business operators in Mount Pleasant) as an important asset in the development process (MPCP, Section 3.10, p. 12).
“It is important to note that additional height (as opposed to density) is a very sensitive issue where there was the least convergence of community opinion during the community plan process (MPCP, Section 5.0, p. 23).
Furthermore, the MPCP also states this additional height and density is contingent on two factors. The first factor is “further urban design” analysis which includes shadowing, view impacts, ‘look and feel’ of the area, ‘permeability’ of the site (the ability of people to see and walk through the site). A concerned resident of Mount Pleasant created an excellent 3D computer model, which in my opinion is way more thorough and accurate than any of the vague drawings the applicant has so far rendered. The model clearly shows the significant shadow impacts that would extend all the way to the north side of Broadway. It also superimposes the proposed building into Google Earth to show the subsequent view impact, which is quite significant. The sheer size and scale of this building does not fit in with the existing heritage buildings and the modern buildings that respect the current C-3A zoning by laws. It does not speak to the unique heritage of Mount Pleasant but rather to the sterile, unimaginative, generic towers of Yaletown or Coal Harbour. This building is nowhere near iconic as it goes against the MPCP, Section 4.2, p.16 that states, “discourage ‘cookie-cutter design’.” This building is as cookie-cutter as it gets. As for permeability, nothing in the project speaks to this.
The second factor is important public benefits (heritage retention, new cultural amenities, affordable housing, childcare, flexible gathering spaces, improved pedestrian environment, provision of cycling routes, streetcar amenities, green space). It is quite clear that this project does not offer any significant benefits- the cultural amenity, or 9,200 sf of Artist Production space, has been dropped; there is no affordable housing; there is no childcare; there is no flexible gathering space; improved pedestrian and cycling routes is extremely vague. The art space is now commercial retail space and the rental units are now market. The $538,000 public art contribution is required by the City.
In lieu of amenities, the City is being given a cash contribution of 6.25 million (not a whole lot), which according to the RIZE website, the City requested. Supposedly this money will go to an off-site cultural or civic amenity in the community. However, there is no guarantee that the money will come back to the community, that it will be used for something the community actually wants/needs or that it will actually happen anytime in the near future. There are a lot of question marks. It is insulting to expect the community to sign off on no immediate or significant benefits I think this makes very little sense and feel the community is getting slapped in the face. To add insult to injury, Planning has stated that the community’s input will be considered in determining the future public benefits. Considering Planning has pretty much ignored the community’s input so far, it is unlikely they will seriously consider community input in the future. I’m extremely skeptical of this process as are most people I’ve talked to. This is a clear case of failed public consultation and other communities are standing up and taking note.
The public consultation process in Vancouver is pretty much BS. Planning has zero interest in what you’re saying. And this is a HUGE CONCERN! The City’s summary of the March 20, 2011 Open House showed that of those in attendance, ~90% disagreed that the proposed (26 story) tower height was reasonable; when asked what a reasonable tower height on this site would be, ~73% said between 6-12 stories (NOTE: 0-6 stories was not even given as an option) and only ~8% said between 25-30 stories; when asked if the proposed density of 6.44 fsr was reasonable, ~68% said it was a very poor fit and only ~4% said excellent. These sentiments have been clearly echoed at every subsequent Open House and these sentiments have been clearly ignored at every subsequent Open House.
At the April 12, 2011 Open House, the height decreased from 26 to 19 stories, citing a 27% decrease in height. However, the floor height was increased. With the increased floor heights, the building actually was about 23-24 stories tall (not 19), with only about an 11% decrease (not 27%). You can see how this may be perceived as extremely disingenuous if it were meant to deceive the public.
And at the Jan. 17, 2012 Open House, residents continued to feel incensed that their demand for a significant reduction in height, amongst other concerns, had still not been adequately addressed. When asked how many people (of the 200-250 in attendance) were in opposition to this rezoning proposal, the majority raised their hands.
Despite numerous and valid concerns the community has raised in opposition to this project, Planning supports this rezoning. It’s been very obvious that Planning has supported this rezoning right from the beginning, always defending the applicant and questioning the community. It’s not surprising considering spot-rezonings have become the norm in Vancouver rather than the exception. Planning’s report even states that “opposition to the proposal has consistently outnumbered support amongst those who have written” and goes on to say that of the 955 correspondences, 61% expressed opposition and 34% expressed support while 5% remained neutral. So my first question is, why is Planning blatantly ignoring community? And my second question is, why is anyone taking this rezoning proposal seriously since it was supported by the recently fired Director of Planning, Brent Toderian.
So I am calling all Vancouverites to get informed and take interest in what’s happening in your city because at the end of the day, YOU ARE THE ONES WHO ARE BEING AFFECTED…don’t be complacent! Take action now. Check out: http://www.rampvancouver.com
Thanks for the post with opinions from both sides. Personally I can’t wait until this goes through – all the people trying to prevent new dense housing form being built steps from a future Skytrain station blow my mind. I wish it was even taller.
When I visited the last open house at the heritage Hall, the people opposing the project were overwhelmingly old and white. Not surprising that people who already have housing in a central area of Vancouver are fighting any change to their neighbourhood to allow more housing.
What do you mean by old and white? Did you really look around the room?
It is not true that we are fighting any change in our neighbourhood, we just want buildings that will fit into the area and a highrise certainly does not fit heritage Mt. Pleasant. Also, if this RIZE site goes through there will be more traffic, pollution and noise in the area. If you like tall buildings then you can always live in Yaletown where there is a skytrain station.
Are you serious? Yes that generalisation is a little unnecessary, but how can you say “if you like tall buildings you can always live in Yaletown”, and not expect someone else (me) to say ‘if you don’t like development move to the Kootnays’ or some other small town! Lets forget the finger pointing and look at the whole picture. Alot of people in Mt. Pleasant were not happy with the original proposal. RIZE listened and adjusted their design to comply somewhat with the community. BUT, it is their money, their project and their business on the line. Not you, not yours… So be happy with some of the changes you are being involved in. However, that being said, I do understand the need to be involved in the process of evolution within your community, and lets be honest about the positive changes that have already happened there. The artists are not all going to run to Toronto at the first sign of change, the community will not implode at the first sign of a skyscraper… Lets put it into perspective and continue to be a part of the change because in the city, high rise buildings will continue to be built… with or without our input…
I’m not sure I understand how being “old and white” invalidates their opinion of a development in their neighbourhood? Are you saying that older white people’s opinions are less meaningful…that they should be ignored? You said it yourself when you wrote “Not surprising that people who already have housing in a central area of Vancouver are fighting any change to their neighbourhood to allow more housing.” (sic)
Of course they are fighting it. They live there, they rent or own homes in the area and like where they live, what is so hard for you to understand about that? Yaletown in the eighties was planned as a sort of “artist area” and look what happened? The developers duped everyone and now Yaletown is “Yaletown.” A shadow of what it could have been. Think Portland or Seattle for an example of what I am talking about.
Frankly, you are a racist troll who obviously is bitter about “old and white” people and you need to work on your IQ before you start spouting off such ignorant nonsense. You definitely DO NOT fit the inclusive Mount Pleasant mould…
ahhh, so there is a mould to fit? Conformity much?
“the people opposing the project were overwhelmingly old and white” are you really this ignorant a human being to even make such a distasteful comment?
You should envy these “old and white” people because they are the only ones who had the opportunity to purchase housing ‘back in the day’ when real estate was reasonably priced and affordable in accordance to people’s incomes as opposed to a majority of citizens of this generation that cannot buy a home, even with well paying, full time jobs. Maybe you and Gregor missed the article in Forbes thats rates Vancouver as the 6th most ‘overpriced’ real estate in the world….a shameful distiniction if ever there was.
And for the record, there is no definative plans for a Skytrain in this area and if there was it would take years for it to come to fruition so its a null and void consideration, where do you get your information from? based on the factual documentation that is available to the public and my contacts at Translink you are pulling this information out of your butt Reilly……you cannot substantiate 3/4 of what you say anyways so just add this to the list of negatives accumulating against your credibility.
What is fact is that you have no respect for the community of Mt Pleasant and no desire to preserve the authentic and distinctive look of the area……please do us all a favour and go and move to Yaletown where you belong!
Thanks SandyJ for your ‘factual’ and informative comments, Reilly should take heed on how things are done with integrity, facts and honesty…..anyone else getting a feeling that he works for either a developer, architect or real estate? lol.
To all citizens of Mt Pleasant and the residents of Vancouver in general, please do your part and attend the Public Hearing on Feb. 27th, 2012 at City Hall and gain control of your city, take that power out of the hands of the Developers and a Mayor who’s track record has shown he is anything but for affordable housing and giving the community a say.
We live in a democracy where our voices should be heard but it is feeling and looking more and more like we are being subjected to a dictatorship……do something now before it is too late.
“Maybe you and Gregor missed the article in Forbes thats rates Vancouver as the 6th most ‘overpriced’ real estate in the world….a shameful distiniction if ever there was.”
…and your response to this is to prevent more homes from being built, and/or demand expensive amenity contributions in exchange for the right to build new housing. Check your supply and demand graph again, you may be drawing the price axis upside down.
“anyone else getting a feeling that he works for either a developer, architect or real estate? lol.”
I don’t work for a developer or any part of the construction industry and I never have. I just want a lot more homes near transit in Vancouver, including in my own neighbourhood.
”What is fact is that you have no respect for the community of Mt Pleasant and no desire to preserve the authentic and distinctive look of the area……please do us all a favour and go and move to Yaletown where you belong!”
1) Hilarious that you think our community is based on subjective architectural aesthetics.
2) People who have different taste in architecture than you aren’t welcome in Mount Pleasant? Thankfully, I don’t think you get to decide that…
Also, the Broadway Skytrain has been in planning for years now and it’s by far the #1 contender for the next Skytrain expansion. I’m willing to bet you $100 that it’ll start construction in the next 10 years, just contact me. That said, the whole point is moot because even if the train is never built (very unlikely), this is still one of the best locations for transit in the city – just steps to 5 different buses. I don’t need to own a car and can get around by transit, foot, and bike easily – this is exactly the type of neighbourhood where we should be welcoming as much new housing as we can.
Or, we could listen to the old people who already own homes and push new development out to the suburbs. Not my first choice…
reilly… first off, i’m not interested in engaging in some lengthy online debate with u. u have ur opinions. i have mine. but i have a question for u. since you’re such a champion of density near transit hubs, are u enraged by the fact that no additional density was factored into the newly built rapid transit station at cambie and broadway? and if so, have u been actively stalking the City to find out why that wasn’t factored into the equation?
also, u accuse so many others of being short-sighted and using one-sided arguments, when in fact, u sound like a broken record, citing the same argument over and over and over again with no facts to back up what u say. i feel like ur really missing the background in understanding the policy and zoning issues, as well as the process of creating and adopting a community plan, as well as the public consultation process. more density needs more public facilities and services to support the growing population which is where CACs come in. u can’t get sumthin for nuthin.
are u enraged by the fact that no additional density was factored into the newly built rapid transit station at cambie and broadway?
1) That’s not entirely accurate, some of the sites around there were upzoned around the same time that the Canada Line went in.
2) Yes, I think it’s a disgrace that significantly more areas along the Canada Line are still capped at a very low density. I don’t need to ask the City to figure out why – just look at the many residents along Cambie who were loud and vocal in their opposition to upzoning around Canada Line stations.
Also, I’m not saying that CACs are bad – just that it’s funny that some people keep requesting affordable housing while simultaneously demanding $10k~20k in CACs per unit…
No Reilly, my response is to have more ‘affordable’ housing to be built, not overpriced condos made with inferior quality materials and all you need to do is walk into half of the available units out there and see what I speak of, the proof is glaringly there.
Or do you think, as obviously our Mayor does since he supported this gong show, that affordable housing means taking a building that once housed low income tenants and was condemend as unlivable, kick them out and then sell the building to a Developer who in turn ‘renovates’ it and then creates ’291 square feet of living space’ that will cost you close to $1000.00 a month in rent!
Many cities, including our neighbours in Seattle, have designed developments that meet LEED Silver and Gold using environmentally friendly materials and design that meets not only density requirements but promotes community through affordable ammenities built right into these developments. More importantly they are priced at a range that is ‘affordable’ to a majority of citizens and upon research, are developments and designs that would work here in Vancouver at a lesser cost than what this particular RIZE project will.
And who pray tell are we building these homes for Reilly? foreign investors who do nothing more than continue to push up housing prices and hence property taxes because our assessments increase substantially due to this influx of development. Don’t think this is the truth, well ask people in finance and industry’s that can answer this question without bias as I did and you should be more than concerned about our Mayor’s ‘vision’ for Vancouver with regards to foreign investment.
All one has to do is walk around Vancouver at around dinner time on a weekday and see the multitude of empty condos and commercial spaces to know that what I write about is fact because these places are not empty because nobody is home, they are empty because they are just that, empty as half of the taxpayers in this city cannot afford to own property or run a small business.
Our community (Mt Pleasant) is special because of its diverse architecture which does not include massive highrises, maybe you should take a walk around again with open eyes instead of your closed mind…..I am sorry but either I need to get my eyes checked or you are confused because I don’t recall seeing any developments in Mt Pleasant that are monstrous 19 (really 24 stories folks don’t be fooled) storey towers that take up over a whole block of our neighbourhood……Downtown yes, but in Mt Pleasant, I think not, so its about what not only ‘looks’ right from an obvious perspective but also about scale.
As for your war cry about density and the need for housing, funny how we have 2 new developments in our areas that have 200 plus units (same amount RIZE wants to build) but are only 8 and 10 stories high, interesting huh? Besides, when you have seasoned architects and other developers commenting about how unattractive and poor in design this RIZE Development is, you take notice.
Yes, we will get a Skytrain or transit hub ‘someday’ but in the interim Translink has to figure out how to cover the disaster of lack of foresight in not having installed turnstiles at Transit stations from the get go and raise the money to cover that substantial cost. In the meantime (several years) if more and more developement is allowed that means more pressure on an already taxed system. If you take the bus as you say (as do I) then you know that pretty much all day long the buses are full and often drive right by you without stopping because of full capacity. Please explain how more housing now will ease that burden as opposed to increasing it because our City Planners will not be running around to quickly put in more transit, heck they are still trying to pay off the debt on the Olympic Village disaster.
You see your biggest problem Reilly is that in theory your ideas might work, but based on the City’s history of backwards planning (lets build tons of condo’s and then figure out how we are going to accomodate transportation etc) but factually it does not.
If City Planning can’t figure it out, its up to the citizen’s who live here and see the missteps and errors created to figure out how to work with the City, Planners and Developers to create a community that offers sufficient housing (affordability being the key), proper ammenities to accomadate this population growth and create a sense of community in which people can work and play in an environment that is inviting as opposed to contentious.
If you cannot see how this line of thought is more constructive and rational in its intent as opposed to simply slapping up tons of housing and figuring out things later as an after thought, well thats your opinion, I am just sharing my alternative but if you ask me one seems alot more positive than the other. Lets see come the Public Hearing on Feb. 27th, 2012 who’s voice speaks the loudest.
Do a little more digging on RIZE’s LEED standards and you might be surprised…
Michelle, please reconsider the belief that excessively high prices mean we should limit additional market supply of a good. I can only imagine your response to a food shortage: “Bread is so expensive, let’s stop farmers from growing more wheat since it only goes to the rich!”
In your world, this project gets cancelled and the 200 rich buyers just disappear.
In the real world, this project gets cancelled and the 200 rich buyers bid up the price on other housing instead.
Also, the alternative to extra pressure on Translink in the short-term is pushing development away from transit lines; I’ll take busier buses for a few years in exchange for allowing more people to live near good transit. Not to mention, the 3 buses that run down Main really aren’t at capacity and can absorb quite a bit more ridership.
Our community (Mt Pleasant) is special because of its diverse architecture which does not include massive highrises
It’s special because it’s diverse, but we can’t add another type of building to the mix. Got it.
Hey Reilly,
Have you heard of “gentrification”?
It’s when long time residents of a neighbourhood are priced out because of new expensive development.
Right now, many of the business owners that make Main Street cool and hip are leaving because their rents and property taxes have gone up.
The poor are displaced, many of them seniors and people on fixed incomes. They move to other parts of the city or to the BC Housing buildings in the suburbs where there is no transit and they don’t have friends.
People who work at the low-paying jobs in the City now have to move out to the suburbs and a) add an hour to their daily commute, and/or b) drive their car to work (both bad for the environment). Also, there’s a huge amount of stress of having to move you and your family from a neighbourhood where you have a community and have lived in for years.
Does this really help anybody? Well yes, RIZE makes a fortune, buying up land in a low-income neighbourhood and then selling it for prices that developers would normally get in other, middle and high-income neighbourhoods. This is the reason you can find so many books about gentrification, and so many scholars are studying it. Because it’s a fool-proof get rich quick scheme, it has spread all over North America, and can only be slowed when neighbourhoods fight back and have their zoning policy changed to prevent economic displacement.
There is no example ever of luxury development (in the scale we’re seeing in Mt. Pleasant) coming into a neighbourhood and not completely displacing its residents.
P.S. Look at the census numbers. This new developmentis not adding residents. Mt. Pleasant is actually shrinking
I doubt you’re going to prevent gentrification by limiting new development. See Kitsilano or a million neighbourhoods in NYC for examples. You might be able to slow it down, but in the long run is that really worth the cost of pushing new development out of central neighbourhoods?
Take Kits for example. It’s possible that the neighbourhood gentrified more slowly due to its significant limits on new development – and yet it’s clear that right now, Vancouver would be better off now if Kits had instead allowed a significantly larger number of housing units to be built. There would be less pressure to develop in less affluent neighbourhoods like Mount Pleasant, for one.
Some kind of compensation for lower-income residents might be appropriate, but flat-out preventing new market construction from happening in central parts of Vancouver is a terrible idea in the long run.
Interesting that the population of Mount Pleasant is shrinking – but it’s going to shrink even more if new development is prevented and the rich just renovate existing buildings instead of building more units of housing…
Now you wish to compare excessive density to bread? wow Reilly, you are more dillusional than I thought.
I think Reilly that I will put my energy and time into helping my community grow in a productive and positive manner rather than debate with you any further. Its obvious where your head and heart lies but I do hope that I get the opportunity to burst your bubble come Feb. 27th.
The people in that area are going to be srdrounued by construction for the next few years. When it’s all done though, there will be some decent infill, and added vibrancy to the neighbourhood.