Broadway Plan Public Hearing - November 14, 2024

Thanks to Mike Klassen and Peter Meizner and any other councillors who did appear in the council chamber to listen to the few speakers who showed up at the hearing. 

Last evening, the Public Hearing for the first three of the dozens of Broadway Plan highrise tower proposals continued. Ever since the 70s when I was a CMHC architect/planner trying to help non-profits obtain approvals for social housing projects, I have had serious reservations about the merits of holding public hearings. 

I even included some thoughts about Public Hearings in my 2022 Holiday Greeting Card

26 Days! In the 80s, I lived through many such hearings, including a 26-day PH for the infamous Spetifore Lands. https://www.delta-optimist.com/local-news/looking-back-at-the-tdl-plans-defeat-30-years-later-3104909. It is the longest hearing ever held in Canada. As noted in this 2019 retrospective article,  

"In an interview a decade later, Michael Geller, who was brought in to devise the plan and marshal it through the approval process, called the hearing a watershed in Canadian planning.

“To their credit, the Tsawwassen community waged the most articulate and organized opposition on private property in Canada,” he said.

Lifelong Delta resident Doug Husband, who was mayor during that time, said it was a challenge trying to cover all the legal bases and navigate a process that appeared destined to have just one result.

“David Strangway was the president of UBC and he came out to see me before the public hearing took place and he said, ‘I just want you to know I have a number of my professors living in Tsawwassen and they are going to make this public hearing the most high-profile public hearing you’re ever going to be involved in. It has nothing to do with single-family developments and traffic and density and all those things. It’s going to be about the environment and First Nations’ issues,’” Husband recently told the Optimist.

After the Federal Minister of the Environment proposed a moratorium to stop the development we held a press conference on the property. It was the first, and last time I used a bale of hay as a podium!

“That’s what they did, they brought up the Lummi Indian Band to speak about how it was sacred land. They had the minister of environment say there should be no development on this land until such time as there is an environmental study. That was Lucien Bouchard, so they flew him out and had him stand on the banks of the Boundary Bay area. It was absolutely quite phenomenal. It was highly organized and I give them great credit for being able to do that, but we had about 8,000 written submissions during the course of that hearing, even as far away as Germany, about saving the flyway and protecting the birds,” he recalled."

Last night's Public Hearing was not as dramatic or lengthy. Some thoughtful comments were made both in favour and opposition to the proposals, especially the building that most offended me on West 14th between Arbutus and Yew. 

The meeting began with a city planner providing a brief outline. The mayor then invited the proponent to make a presentation, but he said no. He was there to answer any questions. Why didn't he make a presentation? This was highly unusual, but I think you'll find the answer later in this post.

Most of the people who I knew were in opposition to the project did not speak at the hearing. After all, I could only see two councillors in the chamber - Mike Klassen and Peter Meizner. If others were there, I apologize for not mentioning you. But thank you for coming.

Others were watching from home. Consequently, there was no longer the opportunity for meaningful exchanges between the politicians and speakers like there often was in the past. 

Fortunately the city has made all the written comments available online in a readable form.

You can find some of the opposition comments, including those by Mike Harcourt, architects Sean McEwen and Peter Busby, and me here. 

https://council.vancouver.ca/20241112/documents/phea6opposed20241112-redacted.pdf

You can also read the comments by Kin Chong, a structural engineer who lives nearby. He listed what he considered numerous practical and safety challenges of building a highrise tower on a sloping site on a narrow and constricted street such as this. 

He observed, perhaps correctly, that the promise to keep all the mature trees would be impossible to keep. After all, the contractor would need to cut down these trees to properly install the crane in a safe and secure manner in such a constricted location. Given the recent accidents with cranes, I found myself thinking maybe he is right.  

Below is a link to just a few of the comments from those in favour of the tower proposal. I say just a few since earlier in the day 242 letters in favour of the application were 'dumped' into the system thanks to the YIMBY organization (YES In My Back Yard) although few, if any of these writers lived on the street where the building was proposed. 

https://council.vancouver.ca/20241112/documents/phea6support20241112-redacted.pdf

This is just one of the letters you will find here:

"Stop letting these NIMBYS with too much time on their hands decide everything simply because they go to these meetings. Vancouver is in desperate need of more housing. These NIMBYS do not care about anyone but them. Its time for NIMBY culture to go away. Please build more housing. I cannot afford the current housing that is built in this city."  

I watched the Public Hearing at the same time as I watched the Canucks hockey game. At times, I wasn't sure what was more depressing. 

When one housing advocate spoke for the third time in favour of build, build, build, regardless of neighbourhood impacts, after all, we're in a housing crisis, fortunately I could mute my computer and turn up the hockey sound. (I suspected some of the councillors may have been doing the same.)

This speaker upset me when she criticized opponents for saying apartments shouldn't be built on side streets. In fact, not one person ever wrote or said that about this proposal. What most were saying was that an ugly 17-storey apartment building, that was 10 times the size of the adjacent homes and completely out of character, should not be built in the middle of this particular block. There were many more suitable locations for towers within the Broadway Plan.

Fortunately, I was pleased to hear the last speaker. He happened to be a developer who lived immediately next door to the proposed development. He said something I had hesitantly included in my written comments, namely this was not a well-though out proposal from a capable, experienced developer. 

The truth was this proponent was a poorly financed land speculator who had only optioned the properties hoping to get rezoning approval so that he could flip the properties to someone else. He had no intention of building the project. He was trying to do the same with two other proposals elsewhere along the corridor.

Since he was the last speaker, the mayor invited the applicant to have the last word. So what did he have to say in response to all the negative comments, especially those by the last speaker? Nothing. 

I found it incredible that he did not at least thank all the people who came out to speak both in favour or opposition of his proposal. We always do that!

As a minimum, he should have offered some response to the allegation he had not been able to arrange any financing since he was simply speculating on the land. 

As I noted in my written comments, (see below) perhaps this is why the suites were so poorly designed. Why waste time and money on refining them if you have no intention of proceeding with the building? (See my previous post).

Hopefully, all the councillors who watched this meeting and read the comments pro and against will have the good sense to reject this project. As several speakers correctly noted there are many better tower proposals coming forward in much more suitable locations. Why approve this one just because it is on the top of the pile? 

Especially when the applicant is not an experienced developer; he doesn't own the property; the design is awful and completely out of scale and character with the neighbourhood; the suites are not designed to be livable especially for lower income families with children. 

Surely this is why the city is even considering this proposal and forgiving $2,557,098 in Development Cost Levies. 

Now as for the Canucks, Vancouver had just three shots in each of the first two periods.

Here are my written comments about the proposal

While I have been a longstanding supporter of higher density and taller buildings, as an architect, planner, real estate consultant and developer, I strongly oppose this application for many reasons. 

1. While staff claim the design conforms with the Broadway Plan, at an FSR 10 times the adjacent homes, and 7 times their height, the building is completely out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood. 

This illustration highlights the fact that the developer and architect don’t want the building to fit in. And it doesn’t and is not likely to ever fit in if approved as proposed.

2. While staff correctly note the form and massing conform with the Broadway Plan, they do not mention that the height and density significantly exceed what would be permitted by the Transit Oriented Area zoning guidelines which designate this area for 3.0 FSR and 8 storeys. 

3. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this is not an attractive building. The developer claims "Located in a quiet, calm, tree-lined neighbourhood, this building has been designed to integrate seamlessly into the community." This is patently absurd. The building is totally out of character with Kitsilano. 

These balconies are drawn to appear like they are 12 feet deep. In fact, they are less than 6 feet which is the minimum depth to be truly usable.

4. A careful review of the drawings reveals a combination of deception and dishonesty. The adjacent homes, with their pitched roofs, are drawn as blocks. The shadows are drawn as if the sun is in the north, not the south. The balconies are drawn to appear significantly deeper than their actual depth. 

I know that this unit will not be livable for a family with children. Yes, it has three bedrooms and two bathrooms. But there is no entry closet, no linen or broom closets, the kitchen has virtually no cupboard space. There isn’t even space for a normal-sized dishwasher. 

5. As the former CMHC architect overseeing the social housing programs, I know that the 2 and 3 bedroom units will not be livable for a family with children. The kitchen is little more than a kitchenette, with a half-sized dishwasher and few drawers. While this might be fine for millenials who will eat out or order in, it's inappropriate for a family with children who may livetheir for many years. 

While the two and three bedroom units have two bathrooms, presumably for marketing reasons, there are no entry closets, no built-in bedroom closets, no linen or broom closets, There are no closets in the bedrooms. There is no washer or dryer, which one has come to expect. There isn't even a communal laundry room in the building 

Why this lack of attention to detail? Because the developer most likely does not intend to build this project. He doesn't own the land. There are no previous developments illustrated on the developer's website. He wants to get a rezoning approval for this and two other assemblies along the Broadway Corridor so he can flip the properties. 

If Council feels it must approve this application since it "conforms with the Broadway Plan", at least impose conditions to direct the architect to revise the design so that it looks like Kitsilano, not Dubai. 

Reduce the height and density to that set out in the Transit Oriented Area zoning requirements. And given all the financial benefits being offered the developer, demand that the family units be revised to be livable for families with children. 

And then impose a moratorium so we can collectively discuss how to improve the Broadway Plan since this application clearly demonstrates it is broken.