May 12, 2016

Little Mountain Steps Ahead

Developer “Trump Tower” Holborn has submitted a revised rezoning application to City staff.  Details HERE, and the application’s Exec Summary HERE.

The proposal is to rezone and develop the 15-acre site into a mixed-use development based on the Council-approved Little Mountain Policy Statement to include:

  • a variety of buildings between 3 and 12 stories
  • mainly residential uses with some commercial and civic uses (approximately 1400 market residential units)
  • 234 units of replacement social housing (53 of which have already been built under current zoning)
  • a City-owned building containing a new Little Mountain Neighbourhood House, a 69-space childcare, and 48 units of affordable housing adjacent to Main Street
  • a new community plaza and public park
  • a new City street and an extension of 35th Avenue

Little.Mountain

 

 

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel Reply

  1. I liked the application, but I emailed the city saying it would be improved if:

    1) The densities were greater so more people can take advantage of this place.
    2) Less parking spaces existed, otherwise we are encouraging driving.

  2. Maybe I missed it, but we’re there any eye level views shown? I’m surprised by the amount of dedicated road space, but I think the subdivision (and sell?) plan may have had something to do with it. Agree that it may be overdue, but Holborn tried to get way too much density and building heights for the community to accept, so they had to accommodate the ‘hood (somewhat) and the COV’s expectations.

  3. Post
    Author
  4. I’m still disappointed that the number of affordable units is largely unchanged from the old little mountain … I think they should have been required to replace the existing council housing AND build 15-20% of affordable housing. Otherwise, there’s little net benefit other than some new units available to the market rate market.

    It seems there are about 3% affordable units in addition … far too low.

    1. I agree. They could have gone with 50% more affordable units in addition to the replacement ones. Ideally of varying sizes.

  5. Overall it’s a good design. Just one minor thing, cycling is thrown in with driving on the new central street. I suppose if motor vehicles volumes are very low then it’ll be okay.
    I wonder why someone can drive right through the area. Wouldn’t it be better if it wasn’t a through route? People are going to discover that this is a good short cut. It would have been better if there was a cul-de-sac at one end. Then nobody would drive through it unless they had business there.

    1. I wonder if they’re allowed to do that under NAFTA. With the trade agreements that Canada has signed, can anywhere state that they’ll only sell to locals and legally be allowed to do that?

  6. This is not a bad site plan. The density and heights of new development on Main is being imported and then pumped up in several buildings, but overall it’s quite comfortable. It accentuates the edge with QE Park and brings a bit more retail opportunity to Main. There is a certain efficiency to the massing that realizes the full potential of the large amounts of wasted space contained on the former social housing complex, yet the new open space that remains is very usable and is sure to be animated by residents. I am not worried about a “lack” of large green spaces on the site with premier open parkland just across the street. Let’s hope the architects do a good job in fleshing out the massing illustrations to reflect delight, uniqueness, historical context, appropriate resilient materials and energy conservation.

    On the downside, and as previously mentioned, the subsidized and affordable housing components should have outnumbered the previous housing units. The population has really grown since they were built a half century ago, and the number of low income singles and families has grown with it. Surely these units can be decentralized into several of the low rise buildings and interspersed amongst the market residential buildings. Perhaps the city can purchase one of the low rises for this purpose, using CACs. The city should also consider developing market rental at the lower end of rental fees, and another building on this site may be quite useful for that. The largest fight over that will be with Holborn and the province, and the city will be reluctant to get into the subsidized housing business more than it already is, but with the market pressures out there today, greater city involvement should be worthy of discussion.

    There is a significant increase in density without a corresponding increase in transit service. TransLink should be a participant because this development rightly sets the precedence to eventually convert the adjacent vast tracts of detached homes on open lots into forms that utilize the available land with far greater efficacy. Transit needs to be an important part of that effort, and the trolleys on Main could receive more priority.

    The stormwater features need to be rethought. They are functionable only in the first few years, but then are often filled in, relandscaped without water or artificially topped up with potable water to maintain the illusion of a natural pond while the stormwater leaders are disconnected. This is a long-term maintenance issue. When the M-word is brought up in the initial design meetings, everyone’s eyes glaze over. The developer and design consultants are usually not concerned about it, and therein the future residents and strata boards are faced with this costly issue. Retaining stormwater is best accomplished with large underground cisterns that are capable of storing all the irrigation and non-potable uses even through the hottest summers. If you want open water, then design it as an honest architectural feature and refrain from the greenwashed token efforts of problematic rain gardens.

    Lastly, this project points the way further south. I believe the community will only benefit from converting the detached houses on Main to continuous retail commercial all the way to 41st Ave, and I suggest an urban design exercise focused on the public streetscape be part of it.

    1. The last thing Main Street (or any of Vancouver’s commercial arterials) need is yet another stretch, stringing them along into even more unwalkable entities.

  7. I haven’t been following the issue closely, but are there no plans for retail outlets in the project? Surely so many people warrant a large grocery store, plus a cafe or two.

  8. Post
    Author

    Building AC is planned to have a “retail food establishment”, and building “BC” a “retail food establishment (grocery)”. Both on the Main St. side of the site (southeast), and totaling 2,578 sq. m., 27,745 sq. ft. In addition, Main St, a commercial area starts at 33rd and runs north.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles