Real Estate

Cambie Corridor Plan proposes developments up to 36 storeys

by Carlito Pablo on May 4th, 2011 at 4:01 PM
    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Like a crystal ball, a major City of Vancouver plan reveals in detail what the future may hold for much of Cambie Street.

      Although planners maintain that it builds on the existing character of neighbourhoods, Cambie may never look the same again in the years to come.

      The document lays down a vision of new buildings that will eclipse, if not totally replace, most of the many rustic-looking ranch-style homes and other single-family houses that dot the street between 16th Avenue and Marine Drive, where the Canada Line runs belowground.

      It talks about four- to six-storey residences rising on sections of this corridor. It visualizes even higher 12-storey structures at the Oakridge Centre area near West 41st Avenue, and up to 36-storey towers where Cambie meets Marine Drive at its southern end.

      At 134 pages, the Cambie Corridor Plan is a key document representing the culmination of the second stage of a planning process whose terms of reference were approved by city council in July 2009.

      “If council approves Phase 2, that essentially puts in place the policy for the corridor itself, the frontage along Cambie and the key side streets,” city planning director Brent Toderian told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview.

      The plan is one of two documents accompanying Toderian’s report that council will take up starting on May 5.

      “It’s a long-term plan,” Toderian emphasized. “It will be up to the market where the first areas will develop and how long it will take overall.”

      The area under study includes portions of the Riley Park, South Cambie, Oakridge, and Marpole communities.

      One community group, the Marpole Area Residents’ Alliance, will ask council to delay approval of a portion of the plan that deals with the Marine Landing site around the intersection of Cambie and Marine.

      “We want them to give direction to the planning department to assess community options and to allow the planning department to provide recommendations on the best possible urban design for Marine and Cambie,” MARA spokesperson Jo-Anne Pringle told the Straight by phone.

      Although MARA isn’t opposed to towers on that site, the group is suggesting lower heights. It is also calling for changes in the design of three development projects being proposed by Wesgroup Properties, PCI Developments Corp., and Intracorp at the site.

      Nigel Baldwin, a former member of the city’s urban-design panel, noted that the current plan drawn up by city staff essentially endorses these pending development proposals involving six towers with heights ranging from 15 storeys to 36 storeys.

      “Essentially, the message is they haven’t finished the planning work yet,” Baldwin told the Straight by phone about what he intends to say when he appears before council. “The schemes that they’re presenting there are third-rate and don’t meet Vancouver’s standards of good urbanism. They need to do more work before they approve this part of the plan and send things off to rezoning.”

      Trish French, a former assistant director of planning for the City of Vancouver, has also expressed concerns over the proposed Marine Landing developments.

      “The proposed scale of up to 36 storeys is more appropriate to the downtown than to a neighbourhood node outside downtown,” French wrote in a letter to council dated May 2, 2011. “While in my opinion towers should be part of the area, both the number and scale are overly intrusive in a low scale neighbourhood. The opportunity to use some mid-rise 6 to 12 storey forms to achieve transitions has been ignored, even though 6 storey residential is proposed northward on Cambie Corridor, and mid-rise office/service/industrial to the south. In a severely park-deficient community, there is almost no semi-private open space for residents, as is normally required in similar density residential projects.”

      MARA is holding an open house on recommended changes to the Marine Landing developments on May 9. The event will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Marpole-Oakridge Community Centre (990 West 59th Avenue).

      Comments

      10 Comments

      Martin Dunphy

      May 4, 2011 at 11:19pm

      CityHallWatch:

      Thank you for the correction. The copy has been changed to reflect this.

      Evil Eye

      May 5, 2011 at 1:46pm

      Yup, as predicted, the Canada Line was built not to move people, but to spur land development.

      Welcome to LA North folks, where the highway system is the main transportation system in the region.

      Dated planning, combined with inept bureaucrats will make Vancouver one of the most unlivable cities in the world. We have taken paradise and are now putting up a parking lot.

      Morridor

      May 7, 2011 at 11:19pm

      I completely oppose the proposed rezoning. The intrusion of mid to high rise buildings will harm these peaceful, residential areas that contribute to Vancouver's beauty and value. This will cause our city to move from community to "fundamentally" a different Vancouver with increased pollution, noise, crime, traffic, extreme loss of privacy and extreme shadowing, to these areas.

      The Canada Line is already packed during rush hour.

      Development in this area should consider the current character of the neighbourhoods.

      In addition to the lack of consideration for many of the residents, this proposal violates the Riley Park/South Cambie (RPSC) Vision that was agreed on by the Vancouver City Council in 2005 where 4 and more story buildings were opposed. The RPSC Vision - approved by the residents and the Vancouver City Council for buildings - includes alternatives that would accommodate increase in density while still blending with the character of the communities.

      Is this a city of the residents or of the developers?

      formula80

      May 10, 2011 at 12:28am

      I and many of my neighbours are not against an increase in density in the King Edward and Cambie area, just against certain types of higher density forms that don’t fit with the existing neighbourhood, don’t respect the current home-owners and DON’T achieve the more sociable, walkable, complete neighbourhood goals the city SAYS it is trying to accomplish.

      I am not against town houses or row houses with many separate street level entrances, they would fit nicely with the character of the neighbourhood. I also support the Laneway house program and would support stratification of laneway houses or coach houses similar to the program in the city hall area. The neighbourhood just wants a more sensible and more gradual approach to achieving higher density instead of an attack of 4-8 storey apartments on a few prime EAST-WEST blocks near the RAV station. It makes NO sense to have a 4 storey apartment building on King Edward street 2 blocks away from the RAV station”¦ but limit 24th Ave (which starts right across the lane from the RAV station) to 2 ½ storeys. The same density could be achieved by lowering the heights on King Edward to 3 storeys, then use a circular approach to spread it out over the entire 500 meter “walking zone”, this would not put 1 to 2 1/2 storey houses back to back with 4-8 storey apartment buildings.

      Our Official Community Vision was adopted by council only 5 years ago. This Community plan was meant to provide a level of CERTAINTY to residents and the planning department to guide how the area would move forward for the next 20 or more years. The RPSC Vision took into account the King Edward RAV station.

      Although not legally binding, there is a quasi-contract implied in the official adoption, by city council, of a document like this and the public should be able to rely on this when making large monetary and LIFE decisions.

      My wife and I relied on this Community plan when, after we were finally able to buy a tiny old house in Vancouver, we sank a large amount of our hard earned money into a major renovation, money that is now down the drain. Our 2 ½ storey house will be behind a huge wall”¦ across the lane from a six storey building. Where is the certainty that I thought I could rely on for many years to come?

      Ronald

      May 10, 2011 at 12:34am

      The proposed plan doesn’t properly address many of its own planning principles, including: sensitive transitions to existing neighbourhoods and walkable communities.

      If more density is needed in proximity to the King Edward RAV station then it would be appropriate to draw a circle around the train station rather than just use the finger or "t" approach. Increasing the density in a circular footprint and spreading it out over the entire 500 meter “walking zone”, with a concept in mind that would NOT situate single family homes and 4-8 storey apartment buildings back to back, but instead, would allow for a tiered approach of building heights (over more than just a half block) to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties. Town home or row house developments right on King Edward, stepping down to 4-plexes (like you see around city hall) or even 6-plexes, and then infill housing, duplexes and Laneway houses as you radiate out”¦ forms contemplated in the RPSC Community Vision”¦ would be much more compatible and would provide a more gradual and sensitive way to get the same density increase.

      The current Cambie Corridor plan doesn't create an integrated and complete community and doesn’t maximize walkability. The build forms in the Cambie Corridor plan are in conflict with the Official Community Vision Plan, do not reflect the character of the neighbourhood, don’t respect the current residents and are not supported by those residents.

      To be clear, it’s not just about “increasing density”, rather, it’s that the city wants to achieve this increase by building towers and large scale complexes that are favoured by large development companies and generate CACs for city coffers.

      This is not good urban design. The Mayor and council should not have hastily approved this flawed plan, but instead, should have instructed the planning dept. to go back to the drawing board and do the proper planning work needed to create a plan that Vancouver would still be proud of 20 to 30 years from now.

      formula80

      May 10, 2011 at 12:38am

      The Cambie Corridor density plan was just rammed though... ripping up and throwing out the RPSC Community Vision in the process. Official community Visions now have NO worth... after millions spent on these exhastive public processes, they aren't even worth the paper they are printed on. This message should be heard loud and clear by West Point Grey, ARKS and Mt. Pleasant that all have had their Community Visions recently adopted by city council.

      Councilors Anton and Woodsworth are the only ones that tried to ammend the plan and are the only two current councilors that will have my vote in the upcoming November election.

      This was a developer driven, back room deal to capitalize on prime westside property right from the start. After this sham of a planning process I will NEVER vote for VISION ever again. The most un-transparent and manipulative civic party to ever exist. They did exactly the opposite of what they promised in the last election. Fool me once... shame on you, fool me twice... shame on me... I don't think so.

      Fan'o Truth

      May 11, 2011 at 2:47pm

      There's a key word missing in both the article and the comments. That word is "price".

      That a supposed densification plan along a major transit route, paid for in part with tax dollars collected up and down the province and across the nation, can be discussed without a word about the price of housing says it all.

      The unspoken intention of all the players, private and public, large and small, is to make absolutely certain that this increment in densities is small enough that it cannot possibly result in any lowering of the market price of apartments.

      hmmm

      May 14, 2011 at 6:12pm

      Since Vancouver cannot sprawl horizontally, it will do so vertically. Towers are essentially vertical cul de sacs.

      Bill McCreery1

      May 26, 2011 at 11:17pm

      The Cambie City administration to confirm their preconceived intention of building a Hadrian's Wall up the middle of Vancouver. If they were serious about listening to the varied communities along the Canada Line they would have had a neighbourhood based planning process in each neighbourhood where a station occurs. This planning process reveals the true motivations of this Council, and it is not to create stronger, healthier, more livable neighbourhoods.

      Vancouverites don't want to live in "corridors", they live in neighbourhoods. so, why is there a planning process intended to create a "corridor"?