Tag Archives: Joo Kim Tiah

Recent Media on New EVICTIONS at Little Mountain

Posted on by
BC Housing performs routine Oil Tank Removal at Little Mountain Housing

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.

This is the final stage of routine remediation at Little Mountain

Oil Tank Removal at Little Mountain on August 13, 2012

Soil Sample Jars at Little Mountain Housing

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.

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.

Did you like this? Share it:

NEW EVICTION NOTICES issued by BC Housing

Posted on by

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

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

Did you like this? Share it:

Little Mountain exhibit at Winsor Gallery

Posted on by

The Little Mountain Project at Winsor Gallery.

Until Sunday July 22, an iteration of The Little Mountain Project is on view at the Winsor Gallery, 3025 Granville Street, Vancouver B.C.

Join David Vaisbord at the gallery on Saturday July 21, from 1pm to 3pm, to have an informal conversation about the fusion of art and media, the website, civic engagement, and future of documentary filmmaking. Learn more about the Winsor Gallery Show.

The Little Mountain Project, installation view at ECUAD

The Little Mountain Project, installation view at ECUAD

Did you like this? Share it:

A Moment of Truth: a 7-minute clip

Posted on by

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

Did you like this? Share it:

NOTICE of Upcoming City Council Meeting – June 27

Posted on by

For those of you who may not be on the City of Vancouver’s email list, here is the notice that was emailed today.

Hello Advisory Group,

The Little Mountain Policy Statement will be considered by City Council next Wednesday afternoon, June 27 at 1:30pm. The agenda and the Council Report have been posted to the City website (Little Mountain is item #4 on the agenda): http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120627/ptec20120627ag.htm

Please note that the draft Policy Statement (“Appendix A”) is included as a separate item due to its size.

At this Committee of Council Meeting, staff will be giving a presentation followed by short presentations by representatives from the Holborn Team and from the Little Mountain Community Advisory Group. After this, members of the public are allowed up to 5 minutes each to address City Council on the subject. Council may ask questions of you or of staff after you speak. If you wish to speak, please see this page:
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/mayorcouncil/speaktocouncil.htm

For general information on the Standing Committees, please see:
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/mayorcouncil/standingcommittees.htm

Regards
Ben Johnson

Senior Planner, Major Projects Group, Community Planning Division, City of Vancouver
t 604.871.6943 | f 604.873.7045 | ben.johnson@vancouver.ca
Little Mountain Housing Program Homepage http://vancouver.ca/littlemountain

If you are new to this process, the quickest way to get up to date is to watch Meetings 29 and 35, which are summaries of City Planning and the Community’s Analysis of the Little Mountain redevelopment plan. Please go to my POSTINGS or ARCHIVE for further details.

David Vaisbord
Little Mountain Project

Did you like this? Share it:

Meeting #35 The Community’s Position on Little Mountain (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)

Posted on by

Meeting #35  
The Advisory Group presents the Community’s perspective on the Little Mountain redevelopment plan.

June 5, 2012

In order to create a community response to “Meeting #29 – The City’s Position on the Little Mountain Plan,” a Community Advisory Group (CAG) sub-group was chosen, to draft a report, which they would present to the whole group for input and revisions. This is the presentation and Q&A which followed.

Input from that meeting has been incorporated into the draft that was presented there. The final report will be presented at the UPCOMING hearing at Vancouver City Hall which takes place NEXT WEEK, on Wednesday, June 27, 2012, at 1:30pm.

Little Mountain Advisory Group sets up Presentation at Meeting #35 - June 5, 2012

Little Mountain Advisory Group sets up Presentation at Meeting #35 - June 5, 2012

Click HERE for the rules on how to sign up to speak to Vancouver City Council.

A note on the posting of meetings to the Web:
I am presenting the most important final meetings (#29 & #35)close to one another in my postings. At this time, please go to my Vimeo site to watch Meetings 30 through 34.

David Vaisbord

Community member

Did you like this? Share it:

Meeting #29 The City’s Position on Little Mountain (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)

Posted on by

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

Did you like this? Share it:

Meeting #28 Consensus Building at Little Mountain – (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)

Posted on by

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

Did you like this? Share it:

Meeting #27 Little Mountain OPEN HOUSE Analysis (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)

Posted on by

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.

Little Mountain Neighbourhood resident speaks to TV News on February 28, 2012.

Did you like this? Share it:

Meeting #33 Urban Design Panel (2nd) discusses Little Mountain (Heading to CITY COUNCIL)

Posted on by
    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

    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.

    Did you like this? Share it:

Little Mountain Project wins FARRIS AWARD for Art and Social Media

Posted on by

Tonight (May 5, 2012) I’m at the Emily Carr University of Art and Design, celebrating the completion of my Masters Degree.

The Opening Night of the Graduate Show starts at 5pm and ends at 10pm.

The Duration of the Grad show is from May 6 to May 21, 2012.
Open daily from 10am to 6pm.

Update: David Vaisbord wins FARRIS AWARD for Art & Social Media at Emily Carr University, for the Little Mountain Project.

Elements from Vaisbord's Little Mountain Project on display at the ECU Masters of Fine Arts Degree Show


The large installation includes two video screens with headphones, and an illustration of the interface of the upcoming Little Mountain Project Social History Website. The Charles H. Scott Gallery houses graduates of the Masters of Applied Arts.

See you there.

David

Did you like this? Share it:

Meeting #26 Heading to OPEN HOUSE 2012 – It’s HOT in here.

Posted on by

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.

Did you like this? Share it: