Joan Chang passed away last night.
Joan Chang 1943-2014
Tag Archives: James KM Cheng Architects
An uplifting meeting with the New Architect for the Little Mountain Project
Last night the Little Mountain Advisory Group reconvened after a long hiatus, at the Hillcrest Community Centre. I was there as always, continuing my 5-year experiment into community engagement, and shot my 350th hour of footage for The Little Mountain Project — soon to enter the fundraising stage of a feature documentary about the amazing neighbourhood in which I live.
Gary Andrishak’s opening remarks – David Vaisbord recording them.
At the meeting, Vancouver City Planners re-introduced themselves and the new lead architect for the Little Mountain Project, Gary Andrishak of the IBI Group.
Andrishak breezed through an introduction of himself and his work, while stating his strong agreement with all of the policies on Little Mountain, developed through community engagement. Proving himself to be a master communicator, he invited everyone in the room to introduce themselves and proceeded to listen to community reiterate some of their ongoing concerns. Joo Kim Tiah (Holborn’s CEO) introduced himself, but kept a low profile throughout. Phillip Scott, Holborn’s new Development Manager also said a few words.
Planner Ben Johnson responds to questions.
News that Andrishak was a lead architect on the Arbutus Walk Project (a predominantly low-rise development) was music to the ears of many in the room, as Arbutus Walk was one of the feature studies of the Advisory Group with an official tour, given three years ago by City Planners and viewable online HERE.
Andrishak identified himself as an expert in community building and planning, who would do things a little differently from that his predecessor James Cheng. As some of you may know, Cheng resigned from the project owning to recent health concerns.
Scott, Johnson & Andrishak at Little Mountain Mtg
He brings an interest in cutting edge urban design, and in particular new projects in Scandinavia. Does this mean that he is in favour of reduced density or height? Improved public realm? He did mention that he was very much in favour of developments with ground level connections to the communities surrounding them. I’m very interested to see what he will bring to the revisioning of our neighbourhood.
You will want to listen to his presentation for yourself.
I will upload the meeting in its entirety next week.
New construction at Little Mountain casts a long shadow in the autumn light – October 2013 – David Vaisbord photo.
Currently, the first to be built on the site is taking shape at Little Mountain, and it does it casts a long shadow. It makes me wonder how dark the site will be, at the projected heights and density of James Cheng’s vision.
David Vaisbord
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Bad
A new 3-part blog series on The Little Mountain Project.
Part 2
The Bad
Urban One builders enters Little Mountain with blazin’ chainsaws.
URBAN ONE – Construction or Demolition service?
I’ve heard the words “heritage-trees” uttered countless times. Three years ago, arborists painstakingly mapped every tree, noting health and potential longevity.
Development Permit shows location of heritage trees bisected by new power lines.
Subsequently, the Planning Department of the City of Vancouver, gave heritage trees prominent status within the Little Mountain Policy statement (see downloadable PDF, particularly page 35 – “TREES”).
URBAN ONE slashes through the canopy for temporary power connections at Little Mountain construction site.
Power Lines once followed established roads through the site.
Trees should be removed to make way for the construction of buildings, not however, to make way for temporary power lines to be eventually buried underground.
So why did tree removal crews break through the orange tree-protection fences to chop a huge wedge through the the living canopy of the proposed Little Mountain Village Square?
Little Mountain: Detail of cuts to planned Village Square.
A power line route circumventing the heritage trees already existed. Why didn’t URBAN ONE communicate with the City of Vancouver’s Planning Department before launching their logging crew through the boulevard? And what does this say about the safety of the remainder of the “heritage trees?”
We have a lack of communication. After two years of consultation the parties involved might just be a little bit weary of Q&A. Well I have advice for everyone involved: Get used to it*.
If the HOLBORN GROUP and URBAN ONE wish to communicate with the community about what they are doing at Little Mountain and why they are doing it, I offer to them this forum – The Little Mountain Project – in order to clarify their actions.
Coming soon…the ugly.
These signs have been popping up everywhere at Little Mountain since the damage was done.
*The Major Projects division of Vancouver’s Planning Department has promised the community, that the Little Mountain Advisory Group will continue to have an active role to play in the rezoning of Little Mountain. We look forward to the resumption of that process.
David Vaisbord
The Little Mountain Project
Know MORE
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: THE GOOD! The design panel looks at plans for the First NEW building at Little Mountain
A new 3-part blog series on The Little Mountain Project.
Part 1
Although I’ve written about the preparation and groundbreaking at Little Mountain in 2013, I wanted to write something about the first 6 months of this year at Little Mountain. And the activities have been so varied and bizarre that the only way to describe them was: Good, Bad, and Ugly. So without further ado…THE GOOD!
THE GOOD
Developer begins building social housing at Little Mountain for seniors!
Urban Design panel #3 – The Little Mountain Project from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
In January 2013 the plans for the construction of the 1st new building at Little Mountain were released. They were publicly revealed for the first time, to Vancouver City’s Urban Design Panel, see above. The panel was impressed. The new social housing is of moderate height and very well designed. Actually, it’s spectacular! Congratulations to the architectural firm of Glair Williams, to James KM Cheng architects and the Holborn Group for welcoming the highly competent and imaginative Glair Williams firm into the project.
Model of new building reviewed at Urban Design Panel
Congratulations also to the community and activists who thwarted BC Housing’s dreams of demolishing the last occupied building, and compelled the government into thinking about the redevelopment of Little Mountain in a smarter and more humane way. As a result, 53 units of new seniors housing will be fast-tracked. This is particularly good news for senior citizens, who were among the hardest hit by the relocation process. Separated from their beloved neighbourhood, old friends and shopping patterns, many were highly stressed. Many complained of substandard replacement housing, and could not wait to return. Some have already passed away – the interminable wait for new housing was just that.
Rich Coleman at Little Mountain Press Conference 2013
The announcement of the new building offered Rich Coleman and the BC Liberals a photo opportunity prior to the 2013 Provincial Election, and I was there to record the event (which I will integrate into feature documentary on Little Mountain).
This project was a huge win for both the activists AND the government, though I don’t think that Minister Coleman* sees it that way.
Exact location of new Little Mountain Seniors’ Housing. Click on image to enlarge.
*Rich Coleman, in a recent conversation with me, stated that I never had anything nice to say about Little Mountain, so I have proved him wrong, right here. There were good things to report. I don’t write the script. I merely observe the play.
Coming soon…with apologies…the bad.
Respectfully yours,
David Vaisbord
The Little Mountain Project
POV Magazine features the Little Mountain Project
Hello Friends and Neighbours,
Check out the Summer 2013 issue of Point of View Magazine. A feature article about The Little Mountain Project is inside! It’s a concise overview of what I’ve been doing over the past 5 years.
You can read from here:
POV Magazine & The Little Mountain Project 2013
or from POV Magazine:
http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/the-little-mountain-project-a-hyperlocal-manifesto
POV is Canada’s premiere magazine about documentaries and independent films. If you would like to read the entire issue, you can find it in magazine shops across the country.
The cover looks like this:
(I’ve added the notes in RED)
POV Summer 2013 Issue – Notes by the author
Cheers,
David Vaisbord
The Little Mountain Project
Groundbreaking Event at Little Mountain attended by Housing Minister Rich Coleman
Hello Friends,
I finally had a chance to meet and talk to the Minister today. It’s very difficult to get an interview with Rich Coleman so it was a tense moment. In the brief encounter and he said a few things, bristled and walked away from my camera. Most significantly, he asking me why he should talk to me, when I had not written a nice thing about the re-development project since it began. But why should I? This is how politicians retain control over journalists. They don’t get the interview if they don’t write nice things. I pointed to the empty wasteland as an indication of my displeasure with his project. He said that it looked just fine to him, and was proof that his plan was rolling along just as he had planned.
Ingrid Steenhuisen asks the Honourable Rich Coleman for an opportunity to meet and talk about social housing issues. (Sam Chang in foreground – Ms. Steenhuisen appears partially hidden behind him) Photo by David Vaisbord at the Groundbreaking at the Little Mountain Project, April 11, 2013.
Minister Coleman shook hands with Ingrid Steenhuisen and Sam Chang,(among the last tenants of the last remnant of Little Mountain Housing) and though he did not refuse Ms. Steenhuisen’s suggestion that they meet and talk about social housing concerns, he didn’t exactly set a firm date. Let me guess when that meeting might happen: When hell freezes over.
There was very little notice given to the press (and none to the community) about when and where the press conference would take place, but in spite of the tight time frame, some key community critics of the project managed to get there on time, including David Chudnovsky and Ned Jacobs. The developer, Joo Kim Tiah; the architect, James Cheng; the head of BC Housing, Shayne Ramsay, and all of their key associates were in attendance. Apparently, they were on the invite list.
Sam Chang performs his own ground breaking ceremony at Little Mountain, April 11, 2013
In his speech, Minister Coleman answered many of my questions, so I didn’t have to ask them outright. He explained what he saw when he looked out over the wasteland at Little Mountain, and his rationale for it. He’d made so much money on the sale of the land (untrue since only a small fraction of the money from the sale has changed hands) and that the demolition of their community was only a brief interlude in the lives of the tenants who would soon be in brand new housing!
Minister Rich Coleman behind Media Scrum at Little Mountain, April 2013
BTW, did anybody see any coverage of the event on the evening news? During a media scrum after the main event was over, the subject swiftly changed from Little Mountain to election politics, using the Little Mountain signage as the background. That blue-coloured background was visible in several election reports, but I did not find any coverage of the groundbreaking event on television.
ps: Vote for Little Mountain Stories web project at http://www.connectthedocs.ca/
Deadline for voting is Friday April 12, 2012 @ 9pm Pacific time.
follow me on Twitter @DavidVaisbord
Little Mountain at City Hall: PART 1 of 2
Here is Part 1 of THE COUNCIL MEETING where the Little Mountain Policy was voted upon, on June 27th, 2012.
Part 1 consists of the major presentations by:
1. Vancouver City Planning
2. The Proposed Developer – The Holborn Group
3. The Little Mountain Community Advisory Group.
Vancouver City Hall meets the Little Mountain Advisory Committee June 2012 – Part 1 of 2 parts from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
FOR THE RECORD. It is clear to everyone in Council Chambers at the time, that the timeline for “Rezoning and Implementation” is from 12 – 18 months.
This Slide presented by Ben Johnson of the planning department indicates that 12 – 18 months is a standard timeline for REZONING and IMPLEMENTATION.
City Planner, Ben Johnson speaks to the timeline at approx. the 21:40 point in the video. As far as I am aware, this second phase of the planning process has not yet begun. This places the beginning of construction of PHASE 1 of Little Mountain well into 2014.
The developer however, has claimed that the last building must be demolished now, to make way for construction in May of 2013.
This has led to a war of words in the press, in which Vancouver’s Planning department has been quoted as stating: “A development this complex would likely take 12 months of public hearings, assuming that the developer’s plans are within the boundaries of the City’s policy statement; following that is six months of enactment. If it’s concurrent, the project could have shovels in the ground by 2014.”
James Cheng plays Holborn’s demo video to City Council
The Ministry of Housing, BCHousing and the Holborn team appear to be willfully ignorant of the facts, as they press EVICTION NOTICES on the last four families at Little Mountain.
Please stay tuned. Part 2 – the Community Speakers – is coming up. Please excuse the delays. Keeping up with the Little Mountain Project is more than a full time job for one person. Volunteers are welcome to contribute. Send an email or use the comment form.
David Vaisbord
Little Mountain Project
Public Screening Tonight with “Cinema Politica”
Five short films from The Little Mountain Project screen tonight at the University of British Columbia.
Here are the details:
TIME: Tuesday October 2nd at 6pm
WHERE: UBC Student Union Building – Norm Theatre.
WITH: CINEMA POLITICA and guests “RED 1” of the Rascalz; Ingrid Steenhuisen, one of the last tenants at Little Mountain; and Tristan Markle co-founder and editor of of Vancouver’s progressive online news site: The Mainlander.
Find out more, on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/events/285629348217987/permalink/289566194490969/
Together we’ll be talking about the past and present crises faced by residents at Little Mountain Housing, and the documentary strategy which motivates my current work-in-progress at Little Mountain. I’m looking forward to discussion to follow the screenings.
David Vaisbord
The Little Mountain Project
Recent Media on New EVICTIONS at Little Mountain
The first of three oil tanks is lifted from the ground at Little Mountain Housing
Here are a few links to articles on what promises to be a new eviction fiasco at Little Mountain Housing. The Vancouver Courier article of August 1st communicates a few important points by Ingrid Steenhuisen, one of the last and most important voices at Little Mountain, but wastes the second half rehashing old information from the developer regarding numbers of replacement housing. Most of this could be researched on line, and had nothing to do with the urgent and timely eviction issue. The Georgia Straight article which is much better than the Courier article, includes a bizarre comment by Vision councillor Kerry Jang who refers to the last remaining townhouse in plural (“those buildings”) while arguing that it will be difficult to perform remediation tasks around them. Really, Councillor Jang? As of Monday August 13th, all remaining and offending oil tanks adjacent to the townhouse were removed and samples will be sent for testing. There were no “difficulties”. Routine testing of the removal usually takes no more than a couple of weeks. FOOTAGE OF THE OIL TANK REMOVAL WILL BE UPLOADED TO THIS SITE, NEXT WEEK.
Oil Tank Removal at Little Mountain on August 13, 2012
Workers use jars at Little Mountain to select soil samples from three areas below the old oil tanks.
Final Stage of Little Mountain Remediation accomplished in a day.
According to the workers at the site, the old tanks were filled with sand over 50 years ago. The sand absorbed most of the oil, rendering the excavation task easy and without incident. What about the claims that other forms of remediation are necessary, and that they necessitate the removal of the last building and the eviction of its tenants, 18 months prior to construction? More to come on this important subject. Important, because it involves the lives of three families who have managed to create a tiny supportive community out of the ruins of the old.
David Vaisbord
The Little Mountain Project.
NEW EVICTION NOTICES issued by BC Housing
In what seems to be another incredible move by BC Housing – since the tragedy of the demolition of Little Mountain itself 5 to 15 years prematurely – it has come to my attention that BC Housing has handed out NEW EVICTION notices to the last 4 families occupying the last row-house building at Little Mountain.
This move is grossly premature – 18 months or more early – as the Rezoning Process is not yet begun. There are no architectural plans – only a site plan and scale model (which itself is only a sketch) There is no schedule for construction. There is literally no reason to hasten eviction at this point.
In addition, the two-year re-development consultation process (with the City of Vancouver Planning Department, the Community, the Developer) is violated by premature demolition of the last remaining row hose. There is no decision yet, on the final use for the Vancouver Heritage Building. Please view Meeting #27, the Heritage Analysis of the Last Building at Little Mountain. Does the developer realize that he is in contravention of his commitment to an open and comprehensive consultation with the city and the community? Is the BC Liberal Goverment aware of this commitment? BC Housing officials have attended meetings and the last Open House at Little Mountain. Feigning ignorance will not do at this point. Do they have any interest in public process?
Sam and Joan in front of their home and garden at Little Mountain Housing – circa 2009
Sammy and Joan Cheng pictured above are a completely blind couple and have lived at Little Mountain for many years. They are extremely vulnerable. At the time that this photo was taken in the fall of 2009, Sammy (who had partial eyesight at the time) had gone to look several times, for suitable apartments for his completely blind wife (Joan) but did not find any which were safe enough, in terms of apartment layout and surrounding street-scape. In a tragic turn of events, Sammy’s remaining eyesight was lost this year. When Sammy had his eyesight he was feisty and fought against relocation. Today he powerless owing to complete lack of sight. At the end of September Sammy will go for surgery on his eye, to implant a new cornea. BC HOUSING HAS CHOSEN TO EVICT HIM ONLY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HIS SURGERY. Sammy is under incredible stress with both the eviction and his operation coming fast. DOES BC HOUSING HAVE ANY ETHICS WHATSOEVER? What is this monster of an organization, which you and I – the taxpayer – support?
This hasty and unnecessary relocation, propelled by politics, may prove tragic for this couple.
BC Housing claims that there are “environmental concerns” and that they have to do remediation of the residue from buried oil tanks. I have placed footage of the excavation of the oil tanks on line. The 3 tanks were removed in a day.
Nevertheless, BC Housing states that ground-water testing now needs to be done.
Really.
They state that such remediation needs to be done in dry weather. There will be – NO DOUBT – dry weather next summer, when this remediation should sensibly take place. At this point in my investigation there seems to be little reason to perform any additional remediation on the site, but you will hear more about this.
For whom is this “remediation” being done? It may be HOLBORN who are seeking to prematurely demolish the last building prior to further public discussion. Can the developer give us some clarity here? Joo Kim Tiah of Holborn should answer to this.
Who else is instigating this move? The Ministry of Housing? Rich Coleman’s office?
And what does the City of Vancouver, its Mayor Gregor Robertson, and Vision Councillors have to say about it?
David Vaisbord
The Little Mountain Project
A Moment of Truth: a 7-minute clip
I offer you a moment of truth.
Seven minutes from Meeting #29 of the Little Mountain Community Advisory Group, or as Ned Jacobs describes it: “a key point in a meeting between the CAG and the planners when the question of who is calling the shots was asked, but not satisfactorily answered.”
(see full text below)
Moments like these often end up defining an entire process.
It remains to be seen, what happens at City Hall next week.
Commentary on the Little Mountain Community Advisory Group Policy Statement, by Ned Jacobs:
June 21, 2012
In many respects, the Little Mountain Community Advisory Group (CAG) statement and recommendations are consistent with those of planning staff, but they differ in regard to overall density and building heights.
Planning staff have recommended that density in the range of 2.3 to 2.5 gross FSR be considered. This may not seem excessive, compared to net FSR figures for some recent high-density proposals for a single building or a city block, but the Little Mountain site is greater than 15 acres and will include streets and public plazas, which limit the overall ground coverage to about 40%.
For a variety of reasons specific to this site and its context, as well as the place and functions of the Riley Park neighbourhood in the city, the CAG concluded that density up to about 2 FSR was appropriate, but are willing to contemplate the risks of accommodating density up to 2.2 FSR to achieve key public amenities, or 2.3 FSR on condition that the additional units are non-market to increase social housing on the site. A target of 20% social housing is supported by both the City and the CAG, but cannot be achieved unless the province is willing to subsidize construction of at least 65 non-market units in addition to the 234 units they have committed to replace.
2.2 FSR is 50% greater than what could be achieved under the approved Community Vision Directions, which would limit building heights to 4 storeys and about 1.45 FSR. The difference between 2.2 and 2.5 FSR is significant: nearly 200 units, equivalent to about three 8-storey apartment buildings or at least one additional storey on each of approximately 20 buildings in the site plan. It would likely necessitate accommodating parking and traffic impacts from at least 150 additional cars, and put further strain on already stressed amenities and services. The CAG considers 2.5 FSR to be excessive, and highly problematic.
The CAG studied several existing high density large-site developments in Vancouver. In regard to the Olympic Village, at 2.6 FSR, the CAG concluded that the combination of building heights and ground coverage resulted in an overly canyon-like environment, not well suited for a family-oriented development. Arbutus Walk, at 1.9 FSR, was more comparable to the Little Mountain site in terms of neighbourhood context. CAG participants appreciated the human scale and diversity of housing types, which includes rowhouses, but thought that some of the green space is underused and might have been better utilized as floor space, while reducing the height and massing of an overly dominant building.
In regard to building heights, planning staff recommend that most of the buildings range from 4 to 8 storeys, with up to two buildings of 12 storeys. The CAG recommends that the majority of buildings be in the 4 to 6 storey range with no building greater than 10 storeys (or 100 feet) in order to preserve high quality public views to and from Queen Elizabeth Park, reduce shadowing, and provide better transitions of scale to the surrounding neighbourhood. There was little public support at the open houses for buildings over 9 storeys. The developer, Holborn Properties, is asking Council to amend the staff recommendations to permit consideration of one 14-storey building to provide “punctuation.” It also seems doubtful that Holborn will ne willing to provide the full complement of Development Cost Levies (DCLs) and Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) on the market units and, when it comes to rezoning may balk at the recommendation that all 234 replacement social housing units be built in the initial phase of construction.
Many CAG participants have a strong sense that the City’s “Little Mountain “planning team” is not actually comfortable with the density (up to 2.5 FSR) that they have recommended, but are responding to directions from “higher levels” within the administration. If these directions are in fact coming from the Mayor and/or powers that be on City Council, this is a problem because it means that professional arms length between our planners and our elected officials has been compromised. It was rumoured that on several occasions Planning Director Brent Toderian considered resigning because parts of some planning staff reports had been rewritten in the office of the General Manager and sent back with the expectation that he would “sign off” on them, and that Toderian’s discomfort with this was a major factor in his being fired “without cause.” One CAG member questioned whether the LM density recommendations are “circular”, meaning that the decision-makers are instructing staff in regard to recommendations, presumably to create the appearance that staff supports those decisions. Here is a link to a 7-minute video segment (by documentary film maker David Vaisbord) of a key point in a meeting between the CAG and the planners when the question of who is calling the shots was asked, but not satisfactorily answered. littlemountainproject.com
Ned Jacobs is a founding member of Riley Park/South Cambie Community Visions, Community Advocates for Little Mountain (CALM), and a participant on the CAG.
David Vaisbord
Observer + Participant
The Little Mountain Project
What is The Little Mountain Project?
It’s bigger than you think.
NOTE: This project has NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER with the three most powerful actors in this public play — City of Vancouver Planning Department or The Holborn Group, the developer of the property, or the Government of British Columbia/BC Housing. Please be aware that the blog that calls itself The Little Mountain Project Newsletter, is the publicity of
The Holborn Group.
The Holborn Group is currently managing a very strong publicity campaign on the internet, to generate support for their very high density housing plan at Little Mountain. Check it out HERE.
Begun in 2008, and in continuous evolution and production since that time, The Little Mountain Project is a multi-platform hyperlocal documentary, conceived by veteran independent documentary filmmaker and Little Mountain Community member, David Vaisbord. The Little Mountain Project is a multi-layer, multi-year experiment in documentary filmmaking that will observe and record in detail the entire process of demolition, planning, and construction of the last major redevelopment project in the city of Vancouver. The subject of the redevelopment of social and affordable housing in Vancouver is of critical interest to almost everyone in this city. This project will untangle the web of influences which shape this city’s policies and processes around these housing issues, as well as the subjects of community, density, and livability. The end results of the process – over many years – will include: a feature length documentary film, web projects (you’re reading one), a site specific art/sign project, and art and museum gallery installations (Winsor Gallery July 2012). To name a few.
Over 250 hours of footage have been recorded to this date.
Look for more complete information about The Little Mountain Project on this website, and the purpose of this particular website, click on “What is LM Project.”
David Vaisbord
June 2012
Meeting #29 The City’s Position on Little Mountain (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)
Meeting #29
THE CITY’S POSITION on Holborn’s Little Mountain Plan.
April 3, 2012
The Planning Department outlines their support for, and criticisms of the Holborn Concept. By defining their position, the Planning Department defines the difference between their position and that of the community. Shocked and surprised? No, not really. The community understands the challenges ahead.
Full Meeting:
In the meeting…
The Advisory Group compliments the planning department on their work, but finds that although the planning departments criticisms are many and good, their overall density of the site is unworkable at their suggested range of 2.3fsr to 2.5fsr.
The Advisory Group suggests that the maximum density be pegged at 2.3, as was represented as the point at which the developer would make a profit and the community get the amenities it wants. (Coriolis presentation Meeting #23)
Patricia St. Michel’s power point presentation can be viewed in complete PDF format on the City of Vancouver’s Major Site Planning Pages. If your computer screen is big enough you can view both the PDF and video at the same time, getting the best visuals and commentary simultaneously.
Shorter Version: 45 min.
Highlights of the Short Version:
00:45 – Ben Johnson of City Planning presents Holborn’s density numbers:
1834 housing units of which 1600 are Market and 234 are Social Housing.
Density Range 2.5 – 2.8FSR.
01:30 – Patricia St. Michel of City Planning presents the City’s critique of Holborn design.
02:29 – Holborn’s Little Mountain plan shown to have higher density than Olympic Village.
03:15 – View analysis from Peak of Queen Elizabeth Park, across Little Mountain Site.
05:45 – Summary of height and density changes requested by the City Planning Department.
Summary of Planners changes to Holborn housing plan
07:45 – Patricia St. Michel states City Planning’s preference for a 2.3 to 2.5 FSR range.
08:00 – Community Discussion Begins
08:00 – Where is shadow analysis at Xmas time? Answer has to do with Northern Climate Challenges.
10:00 – Issue of South site transitions rapidly rising from 4 to 7 stories.
10:50 – Why lower scale buildings and tighter courtyards (in keeping with single family neighbourhood) are not an option.
12:39 – James Cheng mentions that there may not be a housing solution that the Little Mountain Neighbourhood will accept.
13:29 – Community Member (Deborah) thanks the Planning Department on their careful analysis, principle and performance based, and the ways the height trimming is considered and why…but argues that the amount of housing load that is being considered for the site is too much.
17:10 – Ben Johnson argues that Holborn will need to earn the extra density above 2.3 with exceptional housing design.
17:40 – Frustrated observer argues that sunlight discussion is irrelevant.
19:00 – Patricia discusses “Mystery Lake” and water features on the site.
19:30 – President of the Neighbourhood House argues that the deal is good.
20:30 – Norm Dooley (RPSC) argues that Arbutus Walk (Meeting #15) is a better model for Little Mountain housing, and that Little Mountain won’t solve all of Vancouver’s problems. Applause follows.
27:00 – From the very beginning, the entire BC Gov’t concept is wrong, when “We’re selling the house to pay for the furniture.”
28:00 – Another notice of Mystery Lake.
"Mystery Lake" in Little Mountain housing design
28:30 – Neighbourhood House Executive Director argues in favour of the plan owing to costs of building and land, (Arbutus Walk built many years ago) and the amenities delivered.
32:00 – Frustrated observer says “Go ahead full force!”
33:30 – Resident argues that this new housing plan is a stark change for this community.
35:00 – Ben Johnson explains how the city will present both their position and the position of the Little Mountain Advisory Group to Vancouver City Council.
Super Sized Olympic-style density was proposed for Little Mountain Housing
Things START TO HEAT UP here:
36:00 – Resident wonders if the next 3 meetings are worth attending, since the City has presented the essence of their position. The answer is vague.
38:30 – Ned Jacobs argues that even if 2.3 is the best number owing to the political pressure that is exerted on City Planners to increase densities during further development phases.
40:45 – Resident of North of 33rd Avenue Group asks if the City would acknowledge a consensus of the residents of Little Mountain at 2.3FSR and adopt it? The City answers that there are levels of senior management at City Hall who have provided direction of 2.3 to 2.5 FSR owing to multiple city priorities. So the answer is no.
42:00 – WHO is the HIGHER LEVEL? (of decision making in the city)
43:30 – This is YOUR community, but not YOUR city.
44:30 – Ingrid Steenhuisen points out how far the community has come in the acceptance of high densities – of which 2.3FSR is a high density.
45:20 – A discussion ensues about how a Little Mountain Advisory Group Sub Group could write a report which would send a powerful message to Vancouver City Council about their agreement regarding the density which they see as maximum for their neighbourhoods.
After considerable discussion it becomes clear that there will be 3 different presentations that go to council:
One by the Planning department,
One by the Holborn Group,
One by the Advisory Group.
But there is a considerable amount of finessing to take place, so it is unclear what the city’s final position will look like. By the end of this meeting, there is considerable tension in the room, as what goodwill that once existed between the planning department and the citizens apparently evaporates. Ben Johnson states that at a higher political level there is approval of their recommendations. Considering the considerable investment of time, effort, and intelligence in the process, community members wonder if council will consider their input at all.
The Advisory Group does not consider that its input has been narrowly defined by self interest, but by the needs of the surrounding community and the city as a whole, in terms of amenities, infrastructure (including transit, traffic, cycling, park, educational, social, arts issues etc.)and the crisis in social and affordable housing.
Next episodes:
Meeting #30 Traffic and Transportation issues
Meeting #31 Amenities & Affordability
Meeting #32 Holborn speaks to former residents
Meeting #33 **Design Panel – Uploaded 2 weeks ago** check “Recent Posts”
Meeting #34 Sustainability Policies and Little Mountain
Meeting #35 ADVISORY GROUP PRESENTS THEIR RESPONSE
MEETING #36 COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 27, 2012.
Olympic Village vs Little Mountain densities
Heading to City Council:
The finish line has been tentatively set for June 27, 2012.
That’s the date when the Little Mountain Advisory Committee, the City of Vancouver planning department, the Holborn Group, and You make your thoughts known to Vancouver City Council about the deliberations of the past 2 and a half years. At the meeting the planning department will present a policy statement on the current plans, for the approval of City Council. If approved, the policy statement will guide the future rezoning process at the Little Mountain site. The rezoning process (up to a year or more in duration) will include public and legal processes.
David Vaisbord
Little Mountain Neighbourhood
Meeting #28 Consensus Building at Little Mountain – (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)
Meeting #28
Consensus Building at Little Mountain
March 2, 2012
In this community-only meeting — Holborn Group was requested not to attend — the point of the gathering is to move toward building consensus (or near consensus) within the Advisory Group so that the report to council has a clear sense of the community’s positive and negative responses to the developer’s design. Community members revisit their concerns about the current proposal using a CARD WRITING exercise. The exercise is preceeded by a POSTAL CODE analysis of the January 2012 OPEN HOUSE results.
Brief Notes on the meeting:
2:40 — Conversation about the history of the Advisory Group process, moderated by the community Chairperson, Ron Mayers.
6:40 — Ben Johnson (planner) recognizes that the Little Mountain Advisory Group has come a long way in terms of learning and growing over the years of this process, but not necessarily a long way in supporting or endorsing the latest proposal by the Holborn Group. Johnson suggests that the Group’s position should become clearer through the next round of the process.
12:00 — Al Buium of RPSC mentions that a number of Vancouver City Departments, such as Engineering, Traffic, Parks and Recreation, and Schools have not yet made any presentations yet, and Johnson answers that they will appear. Important to note that a representative of Vancouver Engineering does voice an opinion at the URBAN DESIGN Panel Meeting #33.
14:00 — Postal Code analysis. A higher negative response to densities and other aspects of the design was correlated to closer proximity to the site. Discussion follows on the accuracy of the data.
26:00 — The Card Exercise. Three cards were given to each participant, who were asked to write down their three biggest concerns about the project, one on each card. Results of the exercise demonstrate the challenge of balancing all of the concerns. Excellent discussion follows.
1:15:00 — Lisa Schwabe, a senior citizen, presents her concerns about Little Mountain.
1:21:00 — CALM member Catherine Hembling, presents information on new Social Housing Developments based on new financial models in the United States and Europe. The term “Values-Based Banking” is introduced.
FULL Unedited Meeting Below:
Next Up: Meeting #29 The City’s Position on Little Mountain
Heading to City Council:
The finish line has been tentatively set for June 27, 2012. That’s the date when the Little Mountain Advisory Committee, the City of Vancouver planning department, the Holborn Group, and You make your thoughts known to Vancouver City Council about the deliberations of the past 2 and a half years. At the meeting the planning department will present a policy statement on the current plans, for the approval of City Council. If approved, the policy statement will guide the future rezoning process at the Little Mountain site. The rezoning process (up to a year or more in duration) will include public and legal processes.
David Vaisbord
Little Mountain Community Member
Documentary filmmaker
Meeting #27 Little Mountain OPEN HOUSE Analysis (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)
Little Mountain Redevelopment
Meeting #27
The OPEN HOUSE Analysis
February 28, 2012 (an intense meeting)
Heading to City Council:
The finish line has been tentatively set for June 27, 2012. That’s the date when the Little Mountain Advisory Committee, the City of Vancouver planning department, the Holborn Group, and You make your thoughts known to Vancouver City Council about the deliberations of the past 2 and a half years. At the meeting the planning department will present a policy statement on the current plans, for the approval of City Council. If approved, the policy statement will guide the future rezoning process at the Little Mountain site. The rezoning process (up to a year or more in duration) will include public and legal processes.
I will post exact details regarding time and date as I receive them from the planning department or you can click here to find them yourself.
Since January I’ve written a thesis on documentary filmmaking and new media, and as a result, postings to this blog were sporadic. But it’s written, and now time to concentrate on this process.
The series of meetings titled “HEADING TO CITY COUNCIL” represent the FINAL POSITIONS of each of the three groups as they head to Council. You will find them here, starting at number twenty-seven. So far there have been 34 meetings. Number 33, the Design Panel is already up.
Meeting 27 is a good one to start with, because it was the first meeting to follow the OPEN HOUSES of January 2012. The North of 33rd Avenue citizens’ group had not attended any previous Advisory Committee Meetings and were in a state of understandable shock when they saw Holborn’s Model for the first time. They were so upset that they called their own press conference. They brought a considerable amount of drama to the meeting, most of which was warranted — some of which was due to the fact that they had not participated in the process and were not up to speed with the program. Nevertheless, in subsequent meetings they have proven themselves to be an asset.
So, WELCOME to the Advisory Group, North of 33rd residents!!!
And a note of caution to communities in Vancouver: Attend your public meetings or else…
The statistics presented in Meeting #27 are important and warrant close analysis. Meeting #28 (uploading next week) looks at them again with respect to postal codes, and correlations are made between distance from the site and opinions expressed.
I have produced 4 videos from that evening:
1. A 12 minute CLIP of highlights from the entire meeting.
2. The Heritage Report on the last standing building
3. The Complete Meeting including the Heritage Report & Open House report.
4. The 1 minute Global Television Report that was broadcast the same evening.
The Heritage Report
Donald Luxton gives a thorough analysis of the heritage value of the last remaining row house on the site, and historical background on the history of social housing in Vancouver. It’s essential information for anyone interested in the history of social unrest around housing issues in this city.
In addition, Global Television did a decent job of covering the evening event. CBC News was also there, but I did not catch their broadcast.
David Vaisbord
littlemountainproject.com
Little Mountain Neighbourhood resident speaks to TV News on February 28, 2012.
Meeting #33 Urban Design Panel (2nd) discusses Little Mountain (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)
-
Little Mountain Redevelopment – URBAN DESIGN PANEL
Meeting #33
Wednesday May 9, 2012
Dear Viewers,
The deliberations of the Second Urban Design Panel took place on Wednesday May 9 at City Hall.
Synopsis: Although there is high praise for the site plan and James Cheng’s architectural firm and associates, there remains fundamental concerns about the high density of the site, with regard to traffic and transit flow in and around the site. These concerns were voiced by the engineer in the Urban Design Panel. The quality and number of replacement social housing units were also of concern, and discussed.
Here’s the back story.
Two years ago, the Design Panel reviewed the Site plans for Little Mountain — schematic diagrams showing the placement of major roadways and access points onto the site, and general areas of open space and building masses. See the footage go to littlemountainproject.com ARCHIVE and open Meeting #14.
Last week on May 9, this meeting touched upon all of those issues, including height and density. For those of you who have attended the last few Advisory Group meetings, you will have heard the city’s perspective already, though it has undergone further refinement. Ideal density according to the City of Vancouver Planning department (see Meeting #29) is now seen to be somewhere between Arbutus Walk (see Archive Meeting #15)and Olympic Village. (Meeting #6 – The Olympic Village Tour)
They present this to the Panel.
TO THINK ABOUT:
IN THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL MEETINGS, THE COMMUNITY (the public) DOES NOT HAVE A VOICE.
David V
May14, 2012
Architect Veronica Gillies of Vancouver's Urban Design Panel comments on Little Mountain Plans
The role of the Urban Design Panel is to give impartial and professional advice to the Director of Planning, Development Permit Board or City Council on any proposal or policy affecting the community’s physical environment. The Panel is strictly an advisory body and makes recommendations only. It does not have the authority to approve or refuse projects or make policy decisions. The public is welcome to attend the Urban Design Panel meeting, but may not address the Panel. The meeting will be held in the Town Hall Meeting Room (City Hall, main building, 1st Floor, 453 West 12th Avenue). Little Mountain is the fifth item on the agenda and is scheduled for 7:15 p.m.
Meeting #21 Massing exercise number TWO
Meeting #21, was the second major “massing’ meeting of 2011.
This is the second of two density exercises done by the Little Mountain community advisory committee. The community embraces the challenge of forcing (though they may not agree with them), extraordinarily high densities on the site plans. Meetings #20 and #21 will be of interest to everyone who wants to contrast the Little Mountain community’s concept of appropriate massing & density to the Holborn Groups current concept of appropriate massing & density.
The FSR range provided by the architect is FSR 2.0 to FSR 3.25. The omission of the base model FSR 1.4 is noted by one group, who chose to build an FSR 1.4 model on their site plan by omitting a large number of foam chips.
Image from James Cheng's Architecture Slide Show
Timing of the meeting:
0:00 – Meeting opens with general business on selection of community co-chairperson.
5:00 – James Cheng introduces workshop, presents slide show and Dutch architecture book.
15:40 – Community presentation of workshop models begins.
The results show the creativity and intelligence of the community group in dealing with the challenges of densification, and the group is happier with the freedoms of the second workshop.
DV
Meeting #20 Modern Architecture slide show, UBC students & Massing exercise number ONE
Meeting #20, was the first major “massing’ meeting of 2011.
This posting will have THREE PARTS, starting with the first part,
UBC Students show their ideas for re-development in a pre-meeting event:
UBC Student ideas for Little Mountain – Meeting #20 from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
The second part is James Chengs Modern Architecture Slide Show:
Meeting 20: James Cheng’s Architecture Slide Show from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
The third part is the complete meeting:
Meeting #20 – Complete Meeting from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
Meetings 20 and 21 were formative community discussions on density at Little Mountain — without prior knowledge of the Holborn Group density plans.
The re-development of Vancouver is not a spectator sport.
Littlemountainproject.com
OPEN HOUSE 2012: The Video
For those who couldn’t attend, here’s two nights of recording combined into an eight minute clip:
Little Mountain Open House Jan 26 & 28 2012 from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
Don’t forget to send your feedback to the city on line until FEBRUARY 10, 2012.
Check the Little Mountain site at Vancouver Planning for images of information boards presented at the Open Houses. Click on THIS LINK to got to ONLINE SURVEY.
Canal St East side - Little Mountain models
Canal St West side - Little Mountain models
A Tower Concentration in proposed development
Note: Click on the images to enlarge; then, click on “Full Size is 1440×1080” caption to go to maximum dimensions.
Little Mountain development at 37th and Ontario
Little Mountain development at 33rd and Ontario
Important to remember that an estimated 700 cars per hour will exit and enter from the site at rush hours, the traffic you see in this photo is the average flow at approx. 2am Sunday nights. A neighbour who works in childcare asked me yesterday, if the amenities, such as daycare, for preschool and after-school care especially, are in place for a development of this size? As a member of the Advisory Committee who has been to every meeting, I answered no. She has promised to attend a meeting.
Here’s a brief quote, as we contemplate the future of Vancouver, from a sociologist, named Robert Park:
“The city is man’s most consistent and, on the whole, his most successful
attempt to remake the world he lives in, more after his heart’s desire. The
city is the world which man created; it is the world in which he is
therefore condemned to live. Thus indirectly, without a clear sense of the
nature of his task, in remaking the city, man has remade himself.”
If you want to know more about cities and neoliberalism here’s a link to an interesting talk given by economist David Harvey in 2007 titled:
Neoliberalism and the City.
The Little Mountain Project
Open House 2012: Bigger turnout on DAY 2
The Open House on Saturday January 28, 2012 had an even bigger turnout than the first night. Here are a few photos from the successful 3-hour event. I’ll put up more detailed photos of the development up when I upload THE VIDEO next week.
Don’t forget to send your feedback to the city on line until FEBRUARY 10.
Check the Little Mountain site at Vancouver Planning for images of information boards presented at the Open Houses. Click on THIS LINK to got to ONLINE SURVEY. Of course, watch the short video of the last meeting prior to the Open House HERE, before you sign anything.
Note: Click on the images to enlarge; then, click on “Full Size is 1440×1080” caption to go to maximum dimensions.
Entrance to Little Mountain on Main street showing proposed community square
As densities and towers rise around it, this community square gets smaller. Previous versions of this model had a much larger community space.
City Signage for Little Mountain Open House
Little Mountain community members greet public and hand out information at the door
Public Scrutiny of Little Mountain FSR 2.8 model
A large screen creates virtual tour through Little Mountain
Developer Speaks to Press about Little Mountain Plans
Little Mountain community members discuss options
Below are the handouts that community members hand-delivered to hundreds of houses in the neighbourhood.
click to enlarge
Many more detailed images of the models, and commentary to come….
Cheers,
David Vaisbord
Self appointed documentary filmmaker in residence
Little Mountain
Open House 2012: Huge turnout for first night
Hundreds lined up for the first of two Little Mountain Open Houses on Thursday night, January 26th at Brock Elementary school. Both supporters and detractors of the new FRS2.8 development plans showed up in force. See the photos below.
Video footage will be uploaded next week, after the second Open House on Saturday January 28. See previous postings for time and location of last Open House.
Line up to get into Brock School extends half a city block.
Entrance to Brock School - Main Street at 33rd Avenue
Detail of New Little Mountain Model FSR 2.8
Note: Click on the images to enlarge; then, click on “Full Size is 1440×1080” caption to go to maximum dimensions.
Sorry, No Seniors Housing in this plan.
Making Considerations
Holborn display their demo video for Little Mountain.
Meeting #26 Heading to OPEN HOUSE 2012 – It’s HOT in here.
Little Mountain Development
Meeting #26
December 2011
1. Meeting #26 — The 10 minute highlights clip.
GET INFORMED prior to the Little Mountain OPEN HOUSES, scheduled for next week – info at the bottom of this posting.
The Holborn Group’s Final Submission to the Community
I’ve connected 2 videos to this posting, which are as follows:
1. A ten-minute Highlights video – watch this for a quick overview.
2. The complete two-hour public meeting.
PLEASE NOTE: If you’ve watched the 10-minute clip, and want to hear more of what the community has to say about this development, start viewing at roughly the one-hour mark. Highlights of the complete 2-hour meeting are listed further down this page.
2. Meeting #26 — The Full two-hour meeting.
Escalating tension and conflict.
Was there any doubt, when this whole thing began more than 2 year ago, that in the end the developer would be wanting massive density levels at Little Mountain? It only took them 2 years to get around to mentioning it. To their credit Vancouver planning department have their own criticisms of the Holborn proposal, and appear to be listening to the public throughout.
Model of Fsr 2.8 - for THIS Open House
Model Preview Photos
You will not find photos of these models anywhere else but here, prior to the Open House. So take a good look at them before you attend the Open House. The top of each building has a sticker that indicates the number of stories.
Images at left: Top image is the FSR 2.7 from the July 2011 Open Houses. Lower image is the FSR 2.8 (Higher density) proposed in the presentation destined for the upcoming Open House. Click on them to see greater magnification and then chose Full Size.
Note that FSR 2.8 in this new model, though higher density than FSR 2.7 accomplishes this by slightly lowering building heights, and reducing green space between the buildings. Top height is 14 stories on Ontario street, which is two stories higher than Queen Elizabeth Park. To put FSR 2.7 into context link to Density Models – The Movie! which I shot after the July 2011 Open House, when 6 density models were presented, from the base concept at 1.45 to the developer’s dream density of 3.25 FSR. According to an independent financial analyst (Meeting #23 Part 2) FSR 2.25 should be sufficient to ensure financial success of the project.
Special guest at this meeting was city councillor Adriane Carr, (Green Party). We hope that she came away with some new insights. Joo Kim Tiah (The Holborn Group President – who makes a rare speaking appearance here) has stated his intention to take this plan before City Hall.
Projected view from duck pond at QE Park
Also, check out this Mainlander New article about Meeting #26 at this URL: http://themainlander.com/2011/12/12/little-mountain-why-the-struggle-for-social-housing-is-more-pressing-now-than-ever/
Connect to the The City of Vancouver’s Little Mountain Site Planning Program, and their NOTICE OF THE OPEN HOUSES.
Here are some of the MAJOR TOPICS and HIGHLIGHTS of Meeting #26 (complete two-hour meeting) and where to find them:
00:02 – Joo Kim Tiah explains why iconic Social Housing defender James Green resigned from The Holborn Group.
00:07 – Ben Johnson briefly discusses the pocket of single family residences to the North and East of Little Mountain (bordered by Main and 33rd) known as the NE Quadrant, and plans to integrate them into the larger development plan. Ben goes on to give short overview, interesting if you’ve never heard it before.
00:10 – Johnson explains the consequences of a “disconnect” between where the community wants to be, and where Holborn wants to be — it will go to City Council.
00:12 – Johnson answers question: “How far is this plan from the community vision?” You can find out for yourself by viewing Meeting #25, the analysis of public opinion gathered from the last July 2011 Open House.
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting #25 Public Comments Analysed from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
00:14 – Architect James Cheng presents overview of the last 2 years. If you’re new to this process you may want to review this. Cites the Stanley King process, viewable at Meeting#1 The Stanley King Experience (short version) and Long Version.
00:24 – Cheng suggests that the Community Advisory Committee accept responsibility for the hardship of the former residents of Little Mountain, who have been waiting 2 years to return to their homes – since the BC Gov’t demolished them. Translation: “Hurry up and approve this development.” Also see David Chudnovsky (1:02).
00:26 – Cheng suggest that saving trees on the site preserves the “memory” of the site as the first major social housing project constructed in British Columbia. Also see Ingrid Steenhuisen on memory (1:09).
00:33 – Christopher Phillips landscape presentation – green elements.
00:40 – Traffic projections on the new site plan – only for people who drive.
00:46 – Views of Models and Presentation materials – take a look at ‘em. Put them into context by linking to Density Models – The Movie! which I shot after the July 2011 Open House, when 6 density models were presented. You’ll understand what densites of 1.45 to 3.25 FSR look like.
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Density Models – The Movie! from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
00:48 – Pat St. Michel presents the planning department’s critique of plan. Lot’s of height – no daylight.
1:00 – Neighbour comments on shadow impacts, and that presentation materials only show March, but not December shadows. Say goodbye to the sun.
1:02 – Former MLA David Chudnovsky makes compelling arguments for the rejection of the plan and the developer, owing to absurdly high density, lack of affordability and transparency. Among other things, he refutes James Cheng’s plea for the suffering of the ex-tenants. (00:24). He reminds the assembly that it was his community that fought long and hard against the premature demolition, and that the responsibility for the suffering of former residents should be borne by those who destroyed it: the Liberal Government of British Columbia and The Holborn Group.
1:09 – Ingrid Steenhuisen (Little Mountain project resident) asks why memory of the housing complex – in the form of the preservation of the last building currently standing on the Little Mountain site – has not been thoroughly investigated. A rebuttal to Cheng’s idea that tree preservation is sufficient. (00:26)
1:13 – RPSC’s Norm Dooley, makes compelling arguments for the rejection of the plan and the developer citing lack of sustainability on any level. In particular, he contrasts the Holborn plan to similar successful re-developments across Vancouver which densified — within reasonable limits. Norm mentions Arbutus Walk, which was toured by the Advisory Committee in 2010 and viewable on Vimeo at Meeting #15 Arbutus Walk – Touring a major housing site.
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting #15 Arbutus Walk – Touring a major housing site – Low Res/Standard Def from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
1:22 – Ned Jacobs challenges the notion that there will be sufficient civic amenities to service a project of this scale, owing to current overcrowding at the new Hillcrest centre.
1:26 – Community member recalls the past 2 years of meetings, and reminds the architect that the community has waited for 2 years for him to lay down his cards with respect to the scale and scope of the project. She argues that the community has come a long way to accepting higher density, but that the scale of the proposal is impossible to accept.
1:42 – Community members suggest that community and developer may part company.
_________________________________________________________________
Little Mountain Public Open Houses:
Thursday Jan 26 @7pm – 9pm
Saturday Jan 28 @11am – 2pm
Brock Elementary School – 4860 Main street (at 33rd Ave)
_________________________________________________________________
David Vaisbord
Self-appointed documentary filmmaker-in-residence.
Little Mountain Community
Note: If you have questions about FSR and the economic arguments mentioned in discussion please view “Meeting #23 – PART 2 The Economic Analysis” in this video series. In this meeting, the independent financial analyst identifies FSR 2.25 as being sufficient for the developer to make a profit, and public amenities to be constructed. Watch it here:
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting#23 – PART 2 The Economic Analysis from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
Meeting #25 The Summer 2011 Open House Analysis
Meeting #25
(Little Mountain Neighbourhood House Sept. 20, 2011)
The Analysis of Comment Forms from the July 2011 Open Houses
This thumbnail photo below, is a graph that shows strong community opposition to an element of Holborn’s (the developer) July 2011 site plans.
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting #25 The Community Voice & the July 2011 Open Houses from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
Note: If the size of this video image is too small, by clicking on any of the blue highlighted links above you will connect with my VIMEO site, which allows you to chose from a wide variety of screen sizes.
If you were one of the 500 people who attended Little Mountain’s July 2011 Open Houses, you have to watch this presentation. Here you will find some of the results of the Comment Forms YOU FILLED OUT resolved into easy-to-read graphic representation. Much to think about.
In the second part of the video the architect, James Cheng gives the committee a lecture on density and our growing city. He warns the group that the proposal that received the highest approval rating – the lowest density proposal – will never be built. Mr Cheng states that Holborn Properties would rather “walk away” from the housing project.
So where do we go from here? Does the community’s aspirations for this property match those of the developer, or will they always be at odds? And why did Jim Green, one of Vancouver’s most notable social housing advocates, recently resign as Holborn Properties’ representative for this project? Mr. Green appears at this meeting but does not address the group. I wonder if he will return to the project as an independent observer or participant?
James Cheng promises to go back to the drawing board, and come with new ideas as soon as (rumour has it) the end of November, so MORE COMMUNITY MEMBERS need to come out to the next meeting. Big decisions ahead!
Here’s more interviews from the Open House not previously uploaded to this site, including voices of a couple of visitors to the Open House, the architect, and an urban planner.
And if you haven’t seen it yet, don’t forget to watch my favourite video from OPEN HOUSE 2011.
I’m looking for fresh ideas on how to include more community voices into this web-based project. If you are interested in sharing your opinions by appearing on video, on this site, email me at vaisbord@gmail.com and we can talk about where and when we can record it.
Please leave your comments below.
littlemountainproject.com
Best,
David Vaisbord
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting #23 // The Tipping Point
This Little Mountain Advisory Committee meeting is particularly important to an understanding of the planning process, prior to the official Summer 2011 Open Houses. WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING ON*** with those density models can be answered by watching the 3-part series below. I’ve divided the meeting into three essential subjects for your viewing pleasure.
***How the developer’s proposed density models went from sane to insanely dense.
This is how they divide:
Part 1: The Density Reaction.
Deals with the community’s first reaction to density models.
Part 2: The Economic Analysis.
The redevelopment economics of Little Mountain is essential viewing for anyone living in the most expensive city in the world, and surprisingly easy to understand. Learn essential city planner jargon such as “land lift”. Compliments to Mr. Blair Erb of Coriolis Consulting for a compelling performance.
Part 3: A Memorandum to the Community of Little Mountain.
The architect reads the “Memorandum of Understanding” (signed by Mayor Sullivan in 1997). Floor opens up under participants. Warning: Watching this last act of the series may raise your blood pressure!
Make sure you’ve watched part 2 (financial analysis) before you watch this one. The question arises: Will Holborn Development, with the implicit support of the Liberal government force another 1000 units onto the Little Mountain site (condo heights will rise from 8 stories to 18 stories) to “PAY” for the replacement of pre-existing social housing? Housing that was GUARANTEED by the provincial government and BC Housing as a “GIVEN” owing to its destruction in the first instance?
The community takes a collective gasp, but the story has not yet reached its climax. Hold onto your seats for the surprise ending!
Note: Next week I’ll post the First Meeting of the Advisory Committee, in which the community was asked what the wanted to see in the redevelopment plans. It all began with the Stanley King Experience…
David Vaisbord
THE MEETINGS:
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting#23 – PART 1 The Density Reaction from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting#23 – PART 2 The Economic Analysis from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Meeting#23 PART 3 – A Memorandum To the Community of Little Mountain from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
Little Mountain Density Models: The Movie!
OK.
Here are the density models you’ve asked for. I’ve shot the 7 density models in sequence, from 7 different angles. After watching this video 7 times you’ll be ready to fill out the survey you received at one of the Open Houses or found HERE, on line. And check out all of the photographs of Open House Presentation Materials also. Just make sure that the City of Vancouver Major Projects Planning dept. gets it by July 25th!
DID ANYONE NOTICE, that there’s something seriously wrong about the scale of the trees on the model? I mean, how many trees along 33rd Avenue are 8 stories tall? An error of this kind, makes the size of the buildings appear much smaller.
Also, David Chudnovsky has informed us that the planning department’s PDF is non-interactive. Check out his comments on this blog. I discovered that it’s also non-printable. I suggest, that you email The City and ask them to repost the survey as an 8.5 x 11 inch document, so that’s print, scan and fax ready by standard business machines.
UPDATE!
Ben Johnson has posted an 8X10 PDF on their site, that functions adequately, though it does cut a few pages in half. But I think that you can figure it out.
Get those surveys in.
Best,
David V
7 models, 7 angles, 7 minutes.
Little Mountain Redevelopment: Density Models – The Movie! from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
Little Mountain Housing – New computer simulation from David Vaisbord on Vimeo.
You probably watched this computer simulation of a walk through the site. Here it is again.
ACTUALLY, to Click on “FOLLOW ME” (at the top-right of this web-page) does not automatically keep you informed of new postings. You need to set up RSS (Really Simple Syndication) on your own computer. Click on this link for a YouTube video about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0klgLsSxGsU
The beginning of the video is sort of hokey, but it more or less explains why and how it exists, and why you should have it. Setting up something like Google Reader is simple and free. There are dozens of info sites on RSS feeds on the web.
David Vaisbord
Welcome to the Little Mountain Project – a documentary video streaming site.
Welcome to The Little Mountain Project.
This is the premiere of my documentary video streaming site.
Call it what you like, a blog, a webisodic web-doc, whatever. It’s all part of the evolution of the documentary film, and definitions don’t matter any longer.
I’ve been a documentary filmmaker for 20 years, and I’ve been shooting a documentary film on the Little Mountain Housing Project since 2008. I felt it was time to release the tapes of the Advisory Committee Meetings I’ve been shooting since 2009. BECAUSE, the months of work that the community, architects and planners have put into the project are now bearing FRUIT. What KIND of fruit it’s up to you to decide. Vancouver is your city too, not just the private sandbox of developers and real estate speculators. It’s time to jump into the box. So watch the clips and videos, and then ATTEND the next Little Mountain Advisory Committee meeting! All videos are also viewable on VIMEO. Google “Vimeo” + “Vaisbord”.
The next OPEN HOUSE DATE IS TUESDAY JULY 12, 5:30PM TO 8:30PM. In the Riley Park Community Centre Gym.
Click on “Video Streaming” to watch entire Advisory Committee meetings. I am constantly adding more meetings to the list. Meeting #10 is a good place to start, as the community clearly states its position, and the cut is only 45 minutes in length. Less than the average TV show!
On the subjects of DENSITY and MONEY, I’m in the process of uploading short Q&A CLIPS*** of the most important Q&A commentary from the last big meeting on June 28th, 2011, prior to the current open houses. The clips are just below. They’re very short, and give you a glimpse into the issues.
Question asked: The lowest density model is missing. Where is it?
I call this clip “We are completely screwed” because that’s how some members of the Little Mountain advisory council feel – especially those whose homes are directly across roads or laneways. If you were at the Open House on Saturday afternoon (July 9) what you saw would have strongly reminded you of the Olympic Village. Check out my video of the tour of “Arbutus Walk”, to see a gentler form of community architecture played out.
Complete your understanding of this process by viewing these Websites, Blogs, and PDFs:
City of Vancouver Planning Department
DENSITY 101 – A primer in which the term FSR -FLOOR SPACE RATIO is demystified.
RPSC – Riley Park South Cambie Visions – A core community group who organized Meeting #10
City Hall Watch – for photos and some analysis of the first Open House.
Ned Jacob’s post on Michael Geller’s blog
Thomas Thomson’s Thesis on Little Mountain.
I welcome your comments.
Best,
David Vaisbord