Wednesday 23 February 2011

Key Questions for the Lower Capilano Conceptual Planning

DNV Planning staff have prepared a “Key Questions and Answers” or Q & A document to summarize questions and provide responses to many questions that have been raised by participants throughout the process. This document is intended to help raise awareness about key issues and provide information regarding planning for the Lower Capilano Marine area as part of the OCP process. It is intended to be a living document, whereby further questions, responses and information will be added as the process proceeds.Lower Capilano Q & A and planning updates

 Other updates are available from this page as well as summaries of public feedback to the design concept options developed through community workshops.

Friday 18 February 2011

Lower Capilano Conceptual Design Options - First Iterations Fall 2010


The "Crossroads" design option was determined to be the most attractive to area residents as it combined medium density development with amenities such as improved streetscapes, trails and connectivity, community centre and open public space.  Under  this concept  are range of 'transition" infill housing is contemplates, merging the higher density developments into the existing single family home areas of Capilano Gateway.

The limited (approx. 50,000 sq. ft.) commercial space incorporated into this design would be aimed at servicing the local resident population and creating a 'heart" to the community that enhances social interaction and connection to neighbourhood trails and walking paths.



The "High Street' concept envisions high rise density within the former Capwest site and more height and commercial space along Capilano Road.  By building higher, additional open space is obtainable within the development as the building footprint occupies less ground.  As with the Crossroads option, improved and dedicated transit opportunities help to lower overall auto use.

Formerly called the "Do Nothing" option, this design concept illustrates what could be built on the former Capwest site under existing zoning (C5 & C9) today.  The example is misleading in that the C5 zoning does not represent an economically viable development model.  For this reason, this design option should more aptly be titled "Nothing Gets Done" as the economics of a private commercial recreational development are not viable given the market conditions.

The lack of viable development opportunity for the C5 zoning means that development for adjacent properties is negatively impacted, hindering high quality overall development proposals for the entire community.  This option would require additional auto traffic be accommodated to make the commercial developments viable as there would not be sufficient local resident density to support the commercial retail space.

Check out PASSIVHOUS Ottawa development - affordable andsustainable infill residential building

Hey Doug,

Check out this duplex in Ottawa. 3000 sq f at $251US a sq f. LEED Platinum and it qualifies as the first residential Passivhaus in Canada. The slideshow is long, but a good illustration of two things: duplex redevelopment on single family lot and Passivhous design/build from empty lot. At $251/ft2 it would make each duplex cost $376,500 USD, which is roughly on par with CAD$ right now. Factor in the increased building costs of BC, you could still build each side of this duplex for under $450K. The lots in the Lower Cap are at least big enough for this, if not more and the redevelopment costs mean that the duplex units would even be affordable. Now the only way this would work is if current owners chose to redevelop themselves or in partnership with neighbours. If you rezoned first and then sold to a developer at duplex lot value the economics would not, as Jay points out, work.

http://www.vertdesign.ca/projects/rideau/strategies/images.html#grid

Tom

Invitation: PICS SFU UBC Free Public Lecture: Sustainable Systems as if People Mattered, February 24, 2011, SFU Wosk Centre for Dialogue at 7pm

Invitation: Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), SFU & UBC Free Public Lecture

Lecture #5: Sustainable Systems as if People Mattered

Changing behavior—especially the ways we use energy and water—is an essential part of any climate solution. Yet, our urban systems often preclude people from understanding and controlling them to improve efficiency. Dr. Stephen Sheppard from UBC, and Dr. Lyn Bartram and Dr. Woodbury from SFU come together to present two multi-university research projects—the Greenest City Conversations Project and Human-Centred Systems for Sustainable Living. These projects explore the interaction of technology and people, at both individual household and community scales, in making better decisions on energy and resource use. Free registration for this event is encouraged, but not required. Register online at  www.picspubliclecture5.eventbrite.com.


Dr. Sheppard is a Professor in the Faculty of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, UBC, and Director for the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning at UBC.

Dr. Bartram is an Assistant Professor in the School of Interactive Art and Technology at SFU, where she is a cofounder and Director of the Humans, Visualization & Interfaces Lab.

Dr. Woodbury is a Professor in the School of Interactive Arts and Technology at SFU, and Director, Art and Design Practice of the Games, Animation and New Media Network in Canada.



Date:               Thursday, February 24, 2011, 7pm - 9pm

Location:         Room 420, SFU Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, 580 West Hastings Street, Vancouver

Webcast:         www.pics.uvic.ca/events.php

Register:         www.picspubliclecture5.eventbrite.com  


We hope that you can make it, either in person or by accessing our webcast.


 Sustainable Systems as if People Mattered - Free Lecture

Edmonton City offers developers cash incentives to create mixed use hubs

CASH INCENTIVES: $12,000 PER APARTMENT

Edmonton is using hard cash to convince investors to build mixed-use residential and retail in the city core and around transit hubs. The deal can total $12,000 per unit created, in a direct payment to the developer, if they build low-rise residential with storefronts, and $7,000 per apartment if the building is purely residential. The units can be market rentals or condominiums.

The little-known program is aimed at seven older neighbourhoods in or on the fringe of the downtown, including Alberta Avenue, Beverley, Chinatown, Little Italy, Old Strathcona and Stony Plain. The program was launched a year ago but it took six months for it to roll out. An approved developer has one year to present expenses to the city, which then issues a cheque to cover the incentive. For a 36-unit mixed-use project, the maximum allowed, a developer could pocket $432,000!

In the past eight months, only three applications have come forward, totaling 40 units of housing and none have been approved. This means that under the $2 million program, at least $1.5 million remains to be applied for.

Looking at the neighbourhoods, the Old Strathcona area looks like the best bet because it is close to all three post-secondary campuses, including two universities. It is also an historic shopping and entertainment district. However, there are only one or two sites available that would work with the city incentives.

So far, the applications - none are approved yet - are for a two-unit project and two 18-unit mixed use projects in Chinatown and Little Italy. There are also incentives for building retail in the targeted neighbourhoods.

For this improving an existing, vacant retail building, the city offers a grant up to 50% of construction costs to a maximum amount of $15,000 per building.

For those building new retail or commercial space, the city grant is equal to 5% of the total construction value to a maximum amount of $40,000 per building. For information on the incentives, contact Iris Li of the Edmonton Development Incentive Program. Phone 780-495-0977 or email development.incentive@edmonton.ca

The city is also promoting new commercial construction in the Quarters area on the eastern fringe of the downtown, which is now mostly parking lots. In the Quarters, the city has waived ALL parking requirements, reduced development cost charges and provided bonuses such as zero-lot lines for retail and residential developers who build "architecturally attractive, LEED standard" buildings. So far, the incentives have attracted a new $40 million Hilton Hotel, which starts this year; and a proposal for a twin-30-storey tower, 200-unit condo complex where one-third of the units will be non-market housing. A Calgary developer is also looking at refurbishing the old York Hotel into market housing,

Tuesday 8 February 2011

A Letter to DNV Planning Department /Looking at my Neighbourhood April 2010


The edited letter below was first sent to planners with the District of North Vancouver in April 2010.  Since that time  many of the thoughts it contains have flowed out into the community to become the starting point for a grass roots re-examination of the basis and future prospects for out community


At this most recent meeting of the Lionsgate Neighbourhood  Association, held in February of 2010, I presented my concerns about the need to develop some proactive positions and dialogue regarding development from within the neighbourhood itself.  I was encouraged by the response of others who expressed their support for my general ideas and reaffirmed their own concerns that to a large degree fell in line with mine.

The following is a general outline of what I perceive to be the current situation of the neighbourhood.  For the most part these conditions are largely contained within the areas bounded by the south side of Fullerton Avenue, Capilano Road, Curling Road and Glenaire Drive.  Sections of the Lionsgate Neighbourhood outside of these boundaries do not possess the same combination of lot size, aging residents, age of houses, or density issues (ie; Woodcroft) that make this section of Lower Capilano the sharp end of development issues in the area.

Within the area described above, a relatively small number of homes, all built between 1955 – 57, sit on large single-family lots of between 7 – 10,000 sq. feet.  Several homes are occupied by the original owners from inception of the subdivision, while a large number are long time residents of 20-25+ years.  Many of the residents have raised their children in their homes and now retain the houses in their retirement.

At the public meeting I raised the point that within ten years – whether due to age or health related issues – most of the residents in the area would not be in their homes.  I questioned whether many at a distance of ten years (myself included) were prepared to continue to maintain the property and maintenance required on the homes and lots as presently configured.  Several members of the audience echoed my sentiments, pointing out that the amenities and convenience of the neighbourhood made it a desired and valuable location, but the prospect of maintenance, expense and labour of upkeep represented a daunting prospect.  What is needed within our area is a model of change that allows for retaining the core of its character while accepting and integrating possibilities that gradually reconfigure the area more in line with contemporary realities.

My concerns are that the looming and prolonged threat of large scale development in the area has pressured residents to position themselves in a reactive attitude and that as a group we were failing to develop a proactive voice that frames our interests and needs, contextualized within own terms.

Given the pending development applications from Larco Holdings and the Grouse Inn, (and other smaller developers) any discussion of any change or  re-evaluation of the status quo of “single-family housing” for the area elicits stiff opposition.  Currently all discussion is being driven through the agenda and terms set by Larco’s development ambitions for high density, high rise development.  There is no trust that any development brought forward will not result in horrendous traffic, noise, crowding, construction disruption.  There is no faith from any area residents that any of the proposed developments will but guarantee that the formerly private and stable neighbourhood will be undermined, sacrificed and the residents’ lifestyles degraded.

Between these two polarities I believe there exists an opportunity for a gradual and organic (in the sense of rebirth and revitalization) change and reconfiguration of the area.  More than simply having the potential for re-adaptation, I believe it is necessary and ultimately life-enhancing to work towards a degree of change that recognizes the changed scope of urban living, land costs and lifestyles.

The present tensions with regard to the future of this area have led to stasis, a degree of paralysis, where owners are reluctant to invest in major improvements to their homes due to the future direction of the neighbourhood being indiscernible.
This spectre of uncertainty arose for me when I bought my home here in 1994 (after having rented for three years).  “Why would you buy here?” I was asked, “It’s an area in transition.”  When I began   building an office addition onto my home, a man on the sidewalk, shaking his head, questioned my sanity, “You’ll never see your money back out of it. This will all be coming down.”
                                                                                                                                               

Additionally, the current zoning does not anticipate other than very narrow and conventional land use solutions, with no provision for those who might need to change or re-adapt homes due to shifting life circumstances, ie mother-in-law cottages, or duplexes/triplexes. 

As I look around parts of Vancouver, the City and District of North Vancouver, I find any number of well-executed and attractively designed projects, ranging from townhouses to triplex and fourplexes that have been seamlessly inserted into established neighbourhoods.  All have resulted in slightly higher – but eminently livable – density, while enhancing the sustainability and value of the surrounding neighbourhood.  Surely all of these can’t be constructed merely out of vanity and misguided folly?  Why are there no plans/options forthcoming that fall along any of these lines?

In contrast, Larco’s  proposal anticipates and declares the necessity of 400+ units be built on their site, stacked to canyon-like height along both Fullerton and Curling Road.  It needs to be pointed out that Larco bought their property with a known zoning and a functioning business operating on it, and purposely determined to drive that operation into disrepair and oblivion.  They do not have any legitimate cause or grievance to demand that change and development be swung solely to meet their criteria of maximized profit.  One should not expect them to pursue any other course or purpose – it simply needs to be recognized that their self-perceived needs are neither paramount nor supreme.

I believe that given the right context and options, the residents of the Lower Capilano neighbourhood would be willing to accept a degree of higher density, particularly if the change were seen as enhancing their daily lives and mitigating the prospect of runaway development and overcrowding.  Currently all considerations are canted in the direction and towards the pecuniary aims of commercial developers.  The Larco proposals, as presented at neighbourhood meetings over the years, continually leaves the feeling of reducing our neighbourhood to another anonymous highrise hub at the end of a transit spoke to downtown Vancouver.

I look forward to having further discussions with you and the planning department and will be seeking the voices of others in my neighbourhood to bring to the forum.

My final comment is to include the link to a company (albeit in Washington state) that is undertaking development with an approach and product that seamlessly integrates into existing neighbourhoods with viable single-family choices that enhance sustainable use and land value. www.cottagecompany.com/Approach.aspx

Sincerely,

Douglas Curran





Creating a Better Lions Gate / Engaging positive change for our community


Creating a Better Lions Gate
Long time residents of the Lions Gate community are proud and protective of their community.  Its advantages of location, mature trees and proximity to the Capilano River, with easy trail access to mountain and ocean make it an unknown gem, one of the North Shore’s best kept secrets.

But it’s not perfect…
·      Traffic speeds along Fullerton and Curling are out of control.  Control measures/speed bumps are not installed on any of the local roads. Safe legal crosswalks and  
sidewalks are needed, especially for children and the elderly.
·      Property values in the area exceed affordable levels for most young families, yet are not on par with the potential this neighbourhood holds.
·      Uncertainty surrounding the future of the former Capwest site and other vacant commercial properties along Capilano Road impact property values and properties across the community
·      Outdated zoning bylaws with highly restrictive land use regulations discourage
revitalization and renewal. 
·      The lack of nearby community amenities, shopping and services forces people into their cars and creates auto dependence
·      The area lacks a community centre or public meeting space or even a public plaza to help build social connections and foster a vibrant healthy community.
·      There are few housing options for people who want to grow old in their community and a rapidly growing number of seniors wanting to remain in the neighbourhood.

Engaging community issues through the Lower Capilano Conceptual Planning process gives us the opportunity to navigate successfully into the future of Lions Gate. The Plan considers:

·      Upgraded streetscape for Curling Road and Fullerton with improved street lighting,
sidewalks and paths for improved community walkability and connectivity

·      Traffic calming measures in consultation with area residents, with safe, legal crosswalks

·      Enhanced transit services with a designated bus lane on Capilano and Marine Drive

·      Provision for seniors housing which is becoming critical to the whole North Shore,
but particularly so in Lower Capilano/Lions Gate area.

·      Resolve the uncertainty surrounding the commercial properties to release the full potential of the area to become a more vibrant and more livable community

·      Opportunity to obtain a community centre and open public space to foster
healthy social connections and positive community interactions

·      Local shops, services and amenities close at hand in a high quality urban setting, making
the area less “auto dependent”

·      Forward looking opportunities to utilize alternative energy options and energy efficient buildings

Q & A :  A selection of frequently asked questions from area residents
How do we know that a developer won’t build 2 – 3,000 or more units on their property if  rezoning is granted?  How do we not lose control?
Development would proceed under a Comprehensive Development (CD) zone and in doing so the original project drawings form part of the zoning Bylaw.  Further control would come through Development Permits for each phrase of the project and these DPs would be subject to the zoning Bylaw, with additional public input at each stage.

What if they build it and no one comes?
The conceptual design concepts being developed through community design workshops and DNV public workshops are subject to analysis by an independent land economist.  This ensures that concept plans that are realistic, implementable and appropriate in scale for the supporting catchment area and its population density.

If developers get the permission to rezone their property why wouldn’t they want to just buy up the whole neighbourhood?
In an open email of October 18th, sent to community leaders, Art Phillips, Director of Development for Larco Investments stated, “Larco does not have any interest in acquiring or developing any of the residential properties…. from both a development perspective as well as a business venture, the residential properties do not offer an attractive investment…. the land cost and feasibility of assembly of individual properties would be onerous on any developer…. We stated this to the community in the mid 1990’s and our position has not changed.”

Why does anything have to change?  I think things fine as there are now?
The District of North Vancouver faces serious challenges to its long-term economic vitality and sustainability if it fails to come to terms with issues of demographics, infrastructure, transit, traffic and its employment base.  Some of these challenges include:  
-       currently 30% of the DNV population is 60 years of age or older.  This is 4X as many seniors today as there were 30 years ago.  A “missing generation” of young adults (20-40) means there are fewer residents to drive a vibrant local economy.
-       70% of DNV homes are single-family homes, above the price range of young families.  A diversity of housing forms allows for greater demographic diversity.
-       Increasingly both young singles and retiring baby boomers are looking for housing options that suit their lifestyle and retirement choices in an urban setting.
-       Our aging infrastructure, mainly built in the 1950-70s, requires replacement and maintenance at higher costs.  Without increasing density in specific centres, these costs will increasingly have to be raised through property taxes.

What’s in it for me?
The potential for a healthier life for starters! Living in a mixed density neighbourhood provides more health and social benefits.  People who live in a neighbourhood where they can walk or cycle to meet their needs drive 58% less often than residents who live in auto dependent lower density neighbourhoods. Improved connectivity encourages physical activity and beneficial social connections between residents. A better place to call home.

For more information feel free to contact any of the following area residents:

                              Kim Belcher          604-904-2409     kbelcher@shaw.ca
    Doug Curran        604-985-5621     dougcurran@shaw.ca
Jai Jadhav           604-986-0051      jdjadhav@shaw.ca

Retirees heading back to cities

from :  JUROCK'S Facts By Email - Jan. 27 - Feb. 2, 2011


Bucking The Trend: Retirees Head Back To Cities

For years now, the hope for many small towns, especially in B.C., is that a rush of well-heeled retirees would move in from the suburbs and the big city. As the mayor of Parksville told us 30 years ago - well before it became a successful retirement Mecca - "1,000 new seniors have the economic clout of a new pulp mill, but without the pollution."

But now studies and anecdotal evidence is showing that all the demographic forecasting could be wrong: like younger people, many retirees are opting to move to or stay in the city. We first noticed it as a trend in Quebec. According to CMHC, retirees are the second busiest buyers of Montreal's inner-city condos, behind first-time buyers. Many of the retirees are relocating from the suburbs, rather than moving further out of the city. A McGill University study on the trend cited the following facts, which could be translated to anywhere in Canada.

- Suburbs are boring for seniors who don't have children; for retirees the streets are empty all day long.

- Single, widowed or divorced baby boomers living alone often move back downtown to end their isolation, socialize and create a new network of friends.

- Services nearby: live entertainment, boutiques, hospitals, restaurants, movie theatres: if you live in a suburb (or small town) they can be reached only by automobile, but these amenities are within walking distance downtown - a big plus for active baby boomers.

- At a Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association dinner this month in Coquitlam, guest speaker Warren Jestin, senior vice president and chief economist at Scotiabank, said lenders are seeing a trend to, "Seniors moving from rural and smaller centres to cities to be closer to healthcare providers."

Forbes magazine has also reported on the trend in the U.S., citing seniors who tried rural or small town life and fled back to the city. Key reasons: health care; desire for cultural opportunities and access to public transit.

Comments to District of North Vancouver Council / Feb.7 2011


February 7, 2011

Mayor and Council
The District of North Vancouver
355 Queens Road West
North Vancouver, B.C.
V7N 4N5

Dear Mayor and Council,

I want to thank the DNV Council and the Planning Department and staff for their commitment to the OCP process.  It is my experience, and the opinion of many neighbours, that the concern for public participation and engagement of our neighbourhood in the OCP process has been extraordinary and exceptional. 

The current OCP process has been a profoundly important and empowering experience for the residents of the Lions Gate community.  Through this process we have had access to a mechanism that has encouraged us to create and envision for ourselves positive changes and ways of moving towards a desirable, sustainable, and more livable community.  

This process has brought forth an authentic grass roots mobilization and awareness.  There has been a major awakening in how people view their community and challenges we face in order to navigate into a viable and prosperous future.

Many previously-held ideas within our community have come under a level of scrutiny and testing that did not previously exist.  The OCP process has been instrumental in educating and creating the willingness of residents to acknowledge that the status quo is no longer acceptable.   The process has inspired the community to actively seek the improvements that will enrich the community and its future as a whole.

This growing awareness and mobilization of area residents can be considered “citizen capital”, the profit derived from the District’s investment to date. For most residents, where they initially invest their citizen capital,  is via their community association.

In order to secure and compound this citizen capital, it is incumbent on Council to initiate a full review of their policies with regard to community associations, with the goal of ensuring due process, transparency and accountability.  Failing to act, may result in the squandering of the citizen capital created to date.

 respectfully, for Capilano Gateway Association
 
Douglas Curran

Making Calgary a livable city / The Globe and Mail / Feb. 5

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20110205.escenic_1895996/BNStory/National/marcusGee

The link above will take you to a story by the Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee, outlining the thoughts of Calgary's new "ubersmart"  mayor, Naheed Nenshi.  The 39 year old mayor comes to his job from a background as a business professor, activist and newspaper columnist.

A number of Nenshi's observations are pertinent to issues that we have here with the DNV and reflect on conditions underlining many of the strategic initiatives contained within the current OCP process.

In the article Nenshi articulates his vision of his "3-Ds" urban philosophy: density, diversity and a sense of discovery.  Closer to our situation here within Lower Capilano, are his views on the need for:
 (1) "spot intensification" to create hubs for transit, mixed use medium density living,
 (2) smarter suburbs with a mix of housing types that also provides for walkable access to shopping and services.

All of the issues cited in the articles are directly applicable to our local situation and demonstrate the need and wisdom of the Village Centres concept underway within the OCP process.

excerpt:
"When a project called Imagine Calgary asked residents what they wanted from their city in the future, it found that most wanted to live in a place where they could walk to the store, walk their kids to school, get by with only one car and be surrounded by different kinds of people.
  "If everyone wants that, why aren't we building that?" the mayor says."

Calgary's new mayor makes city work