From The Sun:

Judy Osburn (right), who owns a heritage house a block away from the Larch Street site (proposed for a five-storey rental building), is organizing neighbourhood opposition.

It’s in “the wrong place,” says Osburn, who has lived in the neighbourhood for 30 years. …

“The only way they can make (the project) work is to make it higher,” Osburn said. “Make the units smaller, and make the building higher. Well, that’s like the ghetto. You’re dropping the ghetto in Kitsilano …


From Global News:

Councillor Jean Swanson (left) said developers are not interested in building non-market rentals, and argued the city needs to rezone parts of Vancouver as rental-only.

“I can remember when there weren’t any condos. Rentals were all there was. It was fine, it was better than now,” said Swanson.


  1. Interesting! Following. 🙂 People are almost ALWAYS totally selfish and narrow in their perspectives when it comes to housing. I wish that people would really consider the METRO-wide impacts of housing, transportation policy & prioritization (and budgeting!), etc.

    I wonder if there will be some enlightening comments on this. It’s always a fascinating learning process!

  2. Using the word ‘ghetto’ in this fashion is like wearing a t-shirt that sez “I’m a bigot.”

    Know your word origins people.

  3. The presence of a rendering indicates that this proposal has already been vetted with City Planners. It doesn’t matter what it looks like, it’s a done deal as far as planners are concerned as neighbourhood push back has already been calculated and discounted. That is why it is not higher or bigger than that proposed.

    It is unfortunate that planners for reasons unknown would promote this project in the name of adding liveliness to the neighbourhood. Either that is true for every project or it is not true for any project. It is in fact a none statement, statement.

    The unfortunate aspect of this project is that the proposed building typology is not suitable for family housing with it’s double loaded corridors, elevators, and complete lack of outdoor play space and only a few tiny patios at grade level. One has to wonder who the expected renters might be for the 16 two bed / two bath units, and why we have 8 three bedroom units with apparently only one bath each. Obviously not all the ‘family’ units will fit on the grade level floor plate.

    Given the anticipated rental rates we will never see a senior on CPP living in this building. So the question is: Who is really going to live here? Party House?

  4. I am guilty of living right behind this proposed development for the past 42 years. My beef is that the current church building has served a multitude of social needs: apart from faith groups, it has been well used by preschool (with existing playground), a multitude of functions including weddings, concerts, talks, emergency winter shelter, polling station, and as a gathering space for self help and volunteer groups (including ACOA and meals on wheels), yoga classes, drama school, seniors teas, and scouts Canada. It is the sort of place that helps maintain a lively, informed, and livable city. With the proposed development this will all be lost, for another rather large and bland apartment building. These are many of the reasons that this is the wrong place for this development. We support more affordable rentals and densification, but not at the expense of losing scarce existing public amenity spaces. It is probably too late, but the city should take note of what we are losing and protect these spaces in the future.

  5. I suggest that you try educating yourself starting with the City of Vancouver publication: High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines which provides guidance on the location, form and design, and amenities that create family-friendly apartments and buildings. Clearly such a document would not be necessary if all apartments were deemed suitable for raising children!

    As we all know, children are raised in all sorts of circumstances. The point is that this proposal does not appear to be particularly aimed at families, although I am prepared to be convinced otherwise.

    As for all those who are obsessing over appearances, finish materials and bay windows, really, is that all we can think about?

    1. I have seen many families live happily in apartments with minimal amenities. However more amenities is better and they can easily be paid for without government subsidies if we allow tall buildings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *