Category Archives: Other Community Groups

Bike to Work Week—Wrap-Up Party at Creekside Park

Come celebrate the end of Bike to Work Week with a BBQ and drinks from Ethical Bean! Giant and Norco will be providing free bike mechanic services.12210013533_d9014938dd_o

Friday, May 29, 2015 from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Enter to win a prize from Giant, a pannier from Two Wheel Gear, and a pair of Dish Jeans from DU/ER Denim!

Sponsored by Norco, Giant, Two Wheel Gear, DU/ER Denim and car2go Vancouver.

Invite—Sat, May 9, 2015—Prior and Venables Livability Study

message from City of Vancouver, Engineering Services sent May 5.

Location: Strathcona Linear Park (just north of Hawks and Union)
Date / Time: Saturday, May 9, 2015, 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm

…the City is co-hosting an event this Saturday to help engage your community in regards to a Livability Study that our consultant, Urban Systems, will be conducting over the next several weeks.

The purpose of this study is to better understand what can be done to make Strathcona, Grandview Woodland and specifically Prior and Venables Street more livable for all. Urban Systems will be looking into many different aspects of Livability to conduct their work, but they would like your help in determining what is most important to you.

To gather this information they have created a survey to help get as much community input as possible.

The results of this survey will help inform current planning studies being conducted by the City of Vancouver, such as the False Creek Flats Local Area Plan OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAand the investigation into the potential replacement of the Georgia and Dunsmuir Viaducts with a mostly at-grade street network.

The results will also provide important planning context for emerging and new developments such as the proposed relocation of the St. Paul’s Hospital from downtown Vancouver to 1002 Station St.


Park Safety Fair this Saturday—See You There!

People value the time they spend in city parks, whether walking a dog, playing basketball, or having a picnic. How do we keep our parks pleasant and safe?

With a host of partner organizations, FCRA is proud to be a part of the Park Safety Fair at Andy Livingstone Park on Saturday, March 21, 2015, from 10:00am to 3:00pm.

Come meet us and participate in the many other activities we have planned.  ParkSafetyFair

Another condemnation of the 105 Keefer Street proposal and of the planning process.

When I was president of the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Garden Society from 2008 to 2010, I led that organization into the public discussion of the Historic Area Height Review.  I convinced the Garden Board to join with the Chinatown organizations in what was to become known as “Chinatown United.”  After defeating the foolish idea of 30 storey towers in Chinatown, Chinatown United gave its strongest possible support to City’s Historic Area Height Review.  We supported Planning and Council in changing the zoning of the historic Chinatown district for the precise purpose of encouraging development that would secure the economic health of the district and conserve its unique heritage character.   The changes we endorsed are what have made the 105 Keefer Street proposal possible.   After the October 8th community open house I’m inclined to believe I made a great mistake in encouraging the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Garden Society to support the HAHR and in working hard with Chinatown United to create the political support Council needed to turn the review into enabling by-laws.

These are my greatest concerns arising from the October 8 open house:

  1. However one dresses it up, the proposed building is a tall bulky structure in an historic district that is low and fine-boned.  Disturbingly, the presentation materials fail to represent this.

As I pointed out to City staff and the proponent’s staff the visuals at the open house, especially the isometric view from the southwest, were disturbingly inaccurate.  The drawings show the buildings on the north side of the 100 block of Pender as being about the same height as the proposed redevelopment.  The proposed building appears to be tucked into a neighbourhood of buildings of a similar height and bulk.  We of course know this is not the case.  The project architect pointed out that this drawing was generated with the City’s data.  From a community perspective, the source of this error isn’t relevant; what matters is the proposed structure is of a much different height and bulk than the structures around it and the presentation materials present it as otherwise.  I am not suggesting these drawings are purposefully misleading.  They are simply misleading.  The model, while more accurate, also contained many errors, most of all completely missing the variation in the height of existing buildings on the north side of the 100 block East Pender.  The height and bulk of new buildings in Chinatown does matter.  The impact of these structures on the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Park and Garden and East Pender are especially important.  Nothing should be allowed to compromise these rare and unique assets and it is important that the proposed redevelopment be presented to the community in a clear and accurate fashion.

  1. To date the project proponents have not demonstrated how this building conforms with Section 2.3 of the Chinatown Neighbourhood Plan and Economic Revitalization Strategy concerning “Higher Heights.”

The Chinatown Neighbourhood Plan & Economic Revitalization Strategy of June 2012 reads:  “Higher Heights: A rezoning policy for Chinatown South was also introduced as part of Council’s approval. This policy provides Council the opportunity to consider rezonings up to 120’ throughout HA-1A and up to 150’ within a sub-area of Main Street. The higher buildings in Chinatown were for the specific purpose of economic revitalization while also considering heritage values. These sites are also expected to provide public benefits, and the rezoning policy specifies these benefits should meet the community’s objective of innovative heritage restoration, cultural and affordable housing projects. For every supported higher building, a significantly higher standard of architectural and urban design excellence will be required.”  (from Section 2.3, page 28).

This is the measure against which HA-1A rezoning applications that ask for height increases and high floor space ratios must be held.  It is not enough that the proposed building provides housing units, especially of standard market variety.  So here are the questions that arise from the simple breaking out the clauses of Section 2.3, above:

  • How will the building contribute to the economic revitalization of Chinatown?
  • How has it taken heritage values into account?
  • What public benefits does it generate?
  • What does it contribute to innovative heritage restoration?
  • What does it offer culturally?
  • How does it contribute to affordable housing?
  • Does it achieve a higher standard of architectural and urban design excellence?

Nothing in the open house suggested these questions – taken directly from the neighbourhood plan as adopted by Council – have been seriously addressed.  That needs to be done in a thorough way.  Maybe it will turn out that the proposed height and bulk are irreconcilable with Section 2.3.

  1. The City itself needs to explain how this rezoning and the building it will allow will serve the overarching objectives of the Chinatown Plan.

The City needs to decide if it is really serious about the Chinatown heritage district.  All over the world districts like this are used to inform citizens of their heritage and serve as economically significant tourist attractions.  How will a proliferation of buildings such as those under construction at Keefer and Main and the proposed redevelopment of 105 Keefer contribute to this?  What differentiates the buildings I have referenced from other mid- to high-rise residential structures anywhere in the Vancouver Metro Region?  Is the City prepared to permanently damage the heritage district  and Sun Yat-Sen Park and Garden for a few additional housing units?

I left the October 8 open house with impression that the proposed 105 Keefer building, like the two redevelopments at Keefer and Main, would not contribute to the preservation of the historic buildings that constitute the physical heritage value of Chinatown.  Nor would the 105 Keefer proposal create seniors or social housing.  But the wide Chinatown support for greater density and height was premised on these expectations.  And these expectations did not come from nowhere – they were explicit in the years of discussion leading up to the Chinatown Plan and in the Plan itself as adopted by Council.

The City, as much as the proponent, has to do some serious soul searching as to how we have gotten to this stage with the third disappointing building under the revisions to the district’s zoning bylaws the community so resoundingly supported.  How will Chinatown be any different than a strip of Kingsway if redevelopment continues on this course?  There is a lot of good will in every corner in this discussion but that good will needs to be fully reflected now in the buildings that are actually constructed under the new rules.”

Doug Halverson

Our friends and neighbours in Chinatown express outrage

The proposed development at 105 Keefer has raised the ire of the Chinatown Revitalization Committee.  This development flies in the face of the vision and values expressed by the faithful volunteers who have worked for years on revitalization.

Here’s a sample of one submission to the city from UBC professor Dr. Henry Yu:

I am adamantly opposed to the proposed rezoning. Having been a part of the Chinatown Vision and revitalization consultation process for the last decade, and supportive of the consensus created through much hard work involving over 30 Chinatown organizations as well as interested stakeholders from all over the city of Vancouver, I am appalled that all of the work that went into that process will be destroyed in one moment of massive disappointment and failure. This proposal flies in the face of all of the agreed upon principles in the Vision that took so much political work to agree upon. What is needed is a freeze or moratorium on development permits in the Chinatown area until we have created better policy instruments and tools for planners to implement the Chinatown revitalization strategy, and assurances that those who came together to create the revitalization strategy have more formal participation in the shaping of the development of Chinatown. This building could be placed anywhere in the city–Yaletown, False Creek/Olympic Village–why is it in Chinatown? Allow the developers to build it in another site that does not fly in the face of the historic character of Chinatown, and which does not insult community stakeholders by saying that 137 luxury residential units are a higher priority than seniors housing and other needs identified in the Chinatown Vision and revitalization strategy. If the City of Vancouver goes ahead and allows this rezoning, or even if this becomes a permit application to go ahead at 12 stories without rezoning, there will be an open, ugly and vicious political war on City Hall that makes the freeway fight look like a nostalgic moment of togetherness. It will tear the hard won consensus of Chinatown apart, and lead to a mistrust of city planners and City Hall for years to come. The greatest danger is that this development is symbolic of a promise not delivered. The Chinatown Vision and revitalization process was one where the city asked the various Chinatown organizations and community stakeholders to take part, and in exchange for the consultation the City would honour the priorities and commitments made, and protect the unique cultural character of the community. The promises have not been fulfilled, and having this building join 188 and 189 Keefer as three glass towers that have no connection to the street life or cultural fabric of Chinatown is not just an insult, but is easily understood as an act of aggression in terms of misleading the community with promises that went unfulfilled. I am personally angered by the bait and switch quality of the Chinatown Vision process in which I took part in good faith, and also in which I put my own personal and scholarly reputation behind to convince others to take part. I am livid that my bona fide participation as a volunteer for years in various capacities both as a scholar and as a community member has led to this proposal sitting in the last best anchor site for the revitalization of Chinatown. Nothing about this proposal will drive forward the strategic needs of Chinatown and its revitalization. It is anathema to all of the hard work that has been done

Keep My Vancouver Safe

High-rise developments continue to climb while fire-fighting resources shrink and Vancouver fire fighters are very concerned. They are taking a stand and delivering a message that public safety should be a top priority at city hall.

Visit Keep My Vancouver Safe to learn more about important issues on safety, staffing, training and where most of us live—high rises.

Join the conversation about public safety.

Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods’ Town Hall Meeting – a packed house

The FCRA is a founding member of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods, a 24 member coalition of community organizations across the city.  The Coalition’s Town Hall meeting featured 11 Candidates, including mayoralty candidates Bob Kasting, Independent,  Kirk LaPointe, NPA, and Meena Wong, COPE.

The Coalition has developed a set of Principles and Goals to guide community planning.   All parties, with the exception of Visio Vancouver, have endorsed these principles which reenforce the basic concepts of CityPlan that the neighbourhood is the basic building block for urban growth and development.  The Principles & Goals stress Collaborative Planning, which includes such tools as a Household Survey of 100% of residents, to ensure all voices are heard in the planning process.  This resulted in one reporter writing: ” Applause loudest for Vision rivals

More complete coverage of the Town Hall can be found at:  coalition

A disturbing example of the demolition of affordable housing in Marpole. Concord and the City Together Again!

Marine Gardens is a model affordable townhouse project in Marpole on Marine Drive just east of Cambie St.

Released: September 15th, 2014
Where Is The Missing Land Title For Marine Gardens?
(And All That is Wrong with City Planning)

The land title that would show the City of Vancouver’s acquisition of the property on which Marine Gardens is located, is missing from the BC Land Title Registry. This is significant given that residents have been told that the land was originally donated to the City as a park (Delta View Park) with the stipulation that the trees never be cut. The City plans to demolish the townhouse community, and all its trees, to erect more skyscrapers.

Six years ago, I attended the first of many Open Houses and Public Consultations over the 34 story Marine Gateway project currently being built across from Marine Gardens at Cambie and Marine Drive.

Like most who attended, I was not opposed to development in Marpole, but I wanted it to enhance the best features of our neighbourhood as one of the “more” affordable, family-oriented areas of the city. Most of us felt that the 34 story Marine Gateway project was too tall and completely out of scale with our neighbourhood.

At meeting after meeting, planners trotted out the same project assuring us that we had been heard and that the skyscrapers had been moved back a few centimetres to reduce the shadowing on the local school playground.

It was a textbook example of all that is wrong with the planning and public consultation process under Vision Vancouver. It was a waste of time with our comments ignored while Vision boasted about its unprecedented level of (meaningless) consultation.

It was at one of these first Open Houses that the City brought a model of my neighbourhood with clear plastic skyscrapers overlaying many of the existing structures – including my townhouse community- Marine Gardens.

I advised City planners at the time that I had been told that Marine Gardens was built on land that was donated to the City as a park and that the trees were never to be cut. The development they were proposing would necessitate the complete removal of virtually every tree on the site.

I also advised them that Marine Gardens became a showcase for the United Nations Habitat for Humanity Conference, held in Vancouver in the mid-1970s, and was built as a model community. It became the prototype for many of the co-ops that followed.

I went down to the Vancouver Archives and amongst the sketchy records, was able to verify that Marine Gardens had indeed once been “Delta View Park,” and that in the early 1970s, City Council had stipulated that it must be used for “garden apartments.”

The records were too sketchy to understand how land purportedly donated to the City as park land, ever came to be developed.

In 2007, after more than thirty years of maintaining Marine Gardens, the original developer retired and put our community on the market. It sold for $12.5 million. Four years later, Concord Pacific bought it for almost double the price – $23 million.

At three separate meetings, Concord Pacific’s top executives have advised us that the City pressured them to buy Marine Gardens. With their sweet deal in False Creek where they have a 20+ year outstanding commitment to build a park, with City permits to use the space for commercial purposes (a parking lot, a Presentation Centre, rentals to Cirque de Soleil – even an Olympic Pavillion that apparently paid $1.3 million), all while paying no property tax – it is hard to imagine how they could say no.

Since the City itself pressured Concord Pacific to undertake the re-development at Marine Gardens (the two proposed skyscrapers match what was on the City’s model years before Concord was involved), it can hardly reject Concord Pacific’s rezoning application based on public opposition.

This has created a scenario whereby the rezoning application for Marine Gardens has not yet gone through the democratic process (it has not gone before Council and there has been no public hearing) but we have received a letter from Brian Jackson, the head of the City’s Planning Department, advising us that saving Marine Gardens “is not an option.”

This is a clear violation of Article 566 of the Vancouver Charter which stipulates that, “Council shall not make, amend, or repeal a zoning by-law until it has held a public hearing thereon, and an application for rezoning shall be treated as an application to amend a zoning by-law.”

Recent efforts to obtain the historical land title to verify the story behind Marine Gardens, came up dry. The title search company was unable to find the title we need and says it is missing from the records.

Something is seriously, if not legally, awry with the planning process in Vancouver, and it is showing up all over the City.
And the missing land title for Marine Gardens? Under the circumstances, it raises a lot of questions.

Jillian Skeet
Marine Gardens
Jillian Skeet is a writer and national/international affairs consultant. She has lived at Marine Gardens for 11 years.