Monitors what is happening in the Norquay area of East Vancouver
      Provides a forum for residents to communicate
      Documents how city officials implement CityPlan in Vancouver’s second “neighbourhood centre”

The interests of speculators, a developer-funded City Council, and compromised city planners may go against what renters and homeowners want to see happen in their neighborhood. Bad planning can contribute to damage of organic social fabric, loss of affordable rental housing, needless manufacture of unoccupied investment condos, skyrocketing property taxes, artificially accelerated rates of development, more people crowded into the same unimproved public space, aggravation of problems with parking and vehicle traffic, loss of views, poor quality in design, and severe shadow impacts. What is happening to Norquay calls for continuing independent community-based review. Please keep coming back to Eye on Norquay to stay up to date on news and to share your perspective.

→   See Resources in right sidebar learn more about Norquay and city planning in Vancouver

[ Eye on Norquay complements the coverage of 2007-2008 provided by predecessor Norquay Neighbours ]

Written by eyeonnorquay

14 February 2011 at 11:11 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Gladstone Secondary

leave a comment »

 
The following letter about the possible closure of Gladstone Secondary was sent to the Vancouver School Board on 19 September 2016. For things you can do see the appended letter sent out by MLA Adrian Dix.

 
To: Mike Lombardi (VSB Chair)
Joy Alexander, Patti Bacchus, Fraser Ballantyne, Janet Fraser, Penny Noble, Christopher Richardson, Stacy Robertson, Allan Wong, Timme Zhao (VSB Trustees)

 
As residents of the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre, we are concerned about the impact that the closure of Gladstone Secondary School would have on Norquay. An extensive recent City of Vancouver planning process has defined this area as an integrated new community.

The basic vision for the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre is for a complete community: a place where people have housing choices that meet their needs, where there are local shops and services that provide the goods of daily life, where there are public spaces and places for people to meet and engage in community life, and where people can move easily and without a car to access places to work, play, and shop. (Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan, Section 2.2, p. 14. Approved by Council November 2010.)

Norquay has not traditionally included the concentration of amenities and services that many neighbourhood shopping areas can boast. We have no library, no community centre or neighbourhood house, no swimming pool or ice rink.

But Gladstone Secondary School is located only 1 block north of the Norquay boundary. Most of Norquay lies within the Gladstone catchment area, where 71% of Gladstone students live.

 
gladstonemap-1
 

The school acts as an important cohesive force in the Norquay community in several ways.

1.  Teens connect with other teens in their neighbourhood when they attend school classes and extra-curricular activities.

2.  Most Norquay students in the Gladstone catchment area live close enough to walk to school. They become more familiar with their neighbourhood en route.

3.  Families of students connect with other families in their neighbourhood through their involvement in school activities.

4.  Community space is available for meetings and other activities. Together with Norquay’s elementary schools (Norquay and Cunningham), Gladstone provides the only community space in the neighbourhood.

The Norquay Plan strongly encourages new housing types for families. Five thousand new residents are expected to move into the neighbourhood during its 30-year lifespan, a population increase of 50%. By rough estimate, more than 2000 of these expected new residents will be living in Norquay by 2020.

If Gladstone is closed, most Norquay secondary students will live in the extreme southwest corner of the new Windermere catchment area, too far away to walk to school. The Renfrew Ravine and the SkyTrain are barriers that limit access routes to Windermere from Norquay, and make the school feel even farther away than it appears to be on a map. Windermere can never be an effective focal point for Norquay.

We believe that Norquay needs the presence of Gladstone Secondary School to function as a “complete community.” We ask that you remove Gladstone from the list of schools to be considered for closure.
Sincerely,

Jeanette and Joseph Jones
 

 
 
Letter from Vancouver-Kingsway MLA Adrian Dix

19 September 2016

Dear Gladstone, Bruce and Carleton Supporter,

This is a crucial week for the future of Gladstone Secondary, Graham Bruce Elementary and Carleton Elementary. Next Monday September 26th at 7pm, the Vancouver Board of Education will be voting on whether to move our schools and others on the list onto the next stage of the school closure process. It is our first chance to remove Gladstone, Bruce and Carleton from the list and it is very important that we have a huge turnout.

What can you do?

1.  Attend the VSB meeting on Sept 26th! Bring signs and make your voices heard. Location: Charles Tupper Secondary (419 East 24th Ave), starting at 7 pm.

2.  Write a letter to trustees (by email). Their emails can be found here. There are many arguments that can be made for all the schools, please read the following three op-eds for more information on Gladstone, Bruce and Carleton.)

3.  Sign the Petition. Close to 13,000 people have signed so far!

4.  Take a lawn sign.

In response to the VSB’s staff report, we will be working with parents and students to write a detailed report and release it to the trustees and public by Thurs, Sept 22. Our report will address detailed issues of enrolment (current and future), catchments, development, programs, the vulnerability of school populations, traffic, child care and importance of these schools in the community. We will also be working to meet with trustees face-to-face to make our case.

Here is the schedule of other action items this week:

Tuesday September 20th, 2016 afternoon at Vancouver City Hall: The City Council will be voting on a motion opposing school closures.

Tuesday September 20th, 7 pm: A major rezoning and increase in density as part of the Joyce-Collingwood Precinct Plan will be voted on by Vancouver City Council. This has significant implications for the Graham Bruce, Grenfell and Carleton catchments.

Wednesday September 21st, Gladstone students/parents organizing meeting at Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House, at 3:30pm. It’s immediately followed by a student-only “presentation skills” session led by Mimi Nguyen of Cedar Cottage.

Thursday September 22nd, Door-to-door petition and letter-writing drive to Save Gladstone. Starting at 4 pm from Nanaimo Skytrain Station.

Thursday/Friday September 22nd-23rd – Presentation of detailed responses, petition and letters to Trustees.

Sunday September 25th – Petition drive and preparation for meeting on Monday September 26th. Location to be determined.

Monday September 26th – VSB School Closure Meeting, Charles Tupper Secondary, 7 pm (419 East 24th Ave).

There are also many other petitioning and organizing meetings all week. Please stay tuned. And we need all of you at Charles Tupper on Monday!

Adrian

Adrian Dix, MLA Vancouver-Kingsway
5022 Joyce St, Vancouver, BC V5R 4G6 | Phone: 604-660-0314 | Fax: 604-660-1131
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

20 September 2016 at 9:00 am

4869 Slocan Street

leave a comment »

 
Comment on Development Application DE420250
under RM-9A Zoning

http://development.vancouver.ca/pc4869slocan/index.htm

 
eon-160917-photo
 

 
16 September 2016

 
In general, we support this application. We appreciate especially the extent of brick on the exterior of the building, and the variety of layouts for the suites.

Our concerns are:

1.  Trees should be planted along the flanking lane to shade the south side of the building. This is being done for the building across the street at 4888 Slocan Street.

2.  An irrigation system is necessary for the landscaping.

3.  More amenity space needs to be provided for a building of this size. The plans show no indoor amenity space, and only a small outdoor amenity space on the rooftop.

 
Jeanette Jones and Joseph Jones
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

17 September 2016 at 10:17 am

Posted in RM-9A Comment

City of Dord

leave a comment »

 
Upon reading the following brief account of the ghost word dord, it immediately struck me that we in Vancouver have the misfortune to live in the City of Dord. As a particular delight, the story includes the fear-inducing word planned. Further expatiation will follow presentation of this bright nugget, latched onto only as a discerning crow might treasure a piece of tinfoil.

 
 
eon-160822-dord-1
 
 

      The most famous ghost of the twentieth century appeared in Webster's Second
      New International, published in 1934. Webster's included many abbreviations
      in its wordlist, and the compilers planned to include the abbreviation for
      density, usually D, though sometimes a lowercase d is used. In July 1931,
      one lexicographer — Austin M. Patterson, special editor for chemistry — typed
      a 3 × 5 card explaining the abbreviation: he headed it "D or d" and provided
      the explanation "density." But when it came time to transcribe the card, someone 
      misread it and ran theletters together without spaces, producing "Dord, density."
      It took five years for aMerriam editor to notice the strange entry, supported by 
      neither etymology nor pronunciation. After investigating — no one could find any
      evidence for a word dord — he realized it was a mistake. He made an annotation:
      "plate change / imperative / urgent," and the printer removed dord from the next
      reprint, filling the otherwise empty line by adding a few letters to the entry
      for doré furnace.

      Pages 152-153 from "Of Ghosts and Mountweazels," Chapter 10½ in:
      Jack Lynch. You Could Look It Up: The Reference Shelf from Ancient
      Babylon to Wikipedia. New York : Bloomsbury Press, c2016

 
 
The suggestivity of this passage could prove as boundless as the heights to which a Babylonic tower might aspire.

To start with, notice the astounding textual homology: a foolish mistake ran the letters together without spaces. Think of thin streets. Think of plazas plundered, both before (Westbank at 2220 Kingsway) and after (Cadillac Fairview at Pacific Centre) those plazas ever see the light of day.

Next, appreciate how the dictionary publisher could fix the density mistake after a mere five years with a plate change. The beset residents of Vancouver promise to become far more beset when a tectonic plate change restructures the City of Dord.

Finally, revel in thinking about the conjunction of “ghost” with “density.” The incongruity of the two notions emblematizes the future that Bob Rennie has infamously promised to Vancouver. An overall proportion of ever more dwellings for ever fewer residents, as global wealth runs amok. From another angle, ponder how the wraithlike nonsubstance of ghosts has no truck with concentration of matter.

Here is a conundrum for the apostles of density:

How many ghosts can float around in one microsuite in the City of Dord?
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

22 August 2016 at 5:42 pm

Posted in Humor

3868-3898 Rupert Street

leave a comment »

 
Comment on Rezoning Application for
3868-3898 Rupert Street & 3304-3308 East 22nd Avenue

 
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/3868rupert/index.htm

 
3868elevations
 

 
1.  The FSR of this building is too high. In a neighbourhood of mostly single family houses, an FSR of
2.0-2.5 would be more appropriate.

2.  The height and massing of the proposed building needs to be reduced. Aside from the school across the street, which is set well back from East 22nd Avenue, most residential and commercial development is one or two storeys.

The Rupert Street frontage of the site includes a full city block between East 22nd and East 23rd Avenues, a total of 270 feet. The building takes up 258 feet of this frontage. The development should be broken into two buildings, varied in size and height (i.e. 6 storeys and 4 storeys , along this frontage. There should be a courtyard at least 25 feet wide between the buildings to add some ground level open green space. These changes would make the development fit better with the neighbouring single family houses. A 2-building typology would also increase the number of corner units with more than one exposure, giving them more natural light and ventilation.

3.  There should be more family-sized 3-bedroom units. The location is ideal for family housing. It is across the street from Renfrew Elementary School and a couple of blocks from Windermere High School. Renfrew Community Centre, Renfrew Park and Renfrew Library are all within easy walking distance. There will be a grocery store and other shops and services in the development. Yet the proposal is for 70 one-bedroom units and only 4 three- bedroom units. There should be at least 10 3-bedroom units in addition to the currently proposed 30 two-bedroom units.

4.  The location of the lobby and elevators needs to be changed. The currently proposed location means that residents in the northeast corner of the building need to walk almost a city block to reach their units from the elevator. Ideally, there should be an entrance at both the north and the south ends of the development, with an elevator at each location. This is an additional reason to build two buildings. If this is not done and only a single entrance is built, the lobby and elevators should be located on Rupert Street near the centre of the building.

Jeanette Jones

9 July 2016  /  rev 2 August 2016

 
3868siteplan
 
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

3 August 2016 at 11:54 am

Posted in IRP

3560 Hull IRP

leave a comment »

 
3560 Hull Street & 2070 / 2088 / 2090 East 20th Avenue

Coffee Shop Talk on 27 July 2016

 
The following report attempts to convey the substance of the information provided to a group that attended a presentation on the concept of developing a Cedar Cottage block of approximately 50,000 sq ft (about 1.15 acres) under the City of Vancouver’s Interim Rezoning Policy (IRP). This is the seventh IRP proposal to come forward since 2012. It would be the third to locate within a one kilometre radius — haphazardly centering a massive concentration of experimentation around Commercial Drive and East 18th Avenue.

 
gooearth-648
 

Proponents:

Molnar Group — http://www.molnargroup.com — Real Estate Investors

Brook Pooni Associates — http://brookpooni.com — Urban Planning & Communications

 
Blaire Chisholm of Brook Pooni, accompanied by two associates, hosted a group of about twenty local area residents at Commercial Street Cafe for an evening presentation of 12 screens of information. Early on, persons attending were asked not to photograph the screens. Appended is a listing of the titles of the 12 screens, as derived from note-taking, usually with indication of content.

The following matters of interest emerged from the slides and the spoken presentation:

1.  No formal inquiry has yet been made to City of Vancouver by Molnar / Brook Pooni

2.  The City of Vancouver was said to have

        (a) asked the proponent to consider using Interim Rezoning Policy
        (b) indicated that 2088 East 20th Ave could qualify for “heritage” potential

3.  Blaire Chisholm said she observed the process undergone by the Cressey application for 3365 Commercial

4.  Molnar does not anticipate seeking waiver of CAC/DCL

5.  “Underground parking for all residents and visitors” would mean at least one underground space assigned
        to each dwelling unit and not separable from the rental unit (a response to the Cressey practice of
        charging $100 per month for separable parking)

 
Flyer

A double-sided flyer for the event concluded with this information:

 
City of Vancouver’s Interim Rezoning Policy (IRP)

The City’s Interim Rezoning Policy (IRP) encourages the provision of affordable housing options by considering rezoning for sites that meet two criteria: Affordability and Location & Form of Development.

The Molnar Group is considering a project that will offer 100% rental and a range of unit types (townhouses, studios, and 1 to 3-bedrooms). The project is located in close proximity to an arterial road (separated from Victoria Drive by a City-owned community garden). Victoria Drive is part of Translink’s Frequent Transit Network with transit stops nearby and the Skytrain guideway running along the site’s south property line. The IRP is quiet on the form of development adjacent to the Skytrain guideway. The proposal could provide a buffer and transition between the guideway and the single-family neighbourhood to the north.
 

 
3560hull-vanmap-648
 

 
List of Twelve Screens Presented
 

 1  Hull and Twentieth Proposal
    [aerial view with parcel outlined in red]

 2  The Project Team: Brook Pooni 
    [five corporate entities dealing with communication and urban planning,
    architecture, landscape architecture / arborist, culture and heritage,
    and survey work]

 3  Molnar
    [developing real estate since 1969 – several projects listed]

 4  Kensington-Cedar Cottage Profile
    [mainly derived from information provided to City Council at the
    public hearing on the Cressey plan for 3365 Commercial]

 5  Area Context
    [map showing parks, schools, etc – mention of 850 m distance from
    Nanaimo SkyTrain station]

 6  Site
    [outline of four parcels comprising the ~ 50,000 sq ft]

 7  Rosenberg Residence at 2088 East 20th Avenue
    [built 1900 – many additions – "granite" foundation – not on "heritage"
    register – would be relocated]

 8  More Affordable Housing

 9  Interim Rezoning Policy
    [project verbally described as "buffer and transition" to SkyTrain

10  Big Ideas
    [rental apartments, Rosenberg residence as live/work unit with daycare,
    surrounding pedestrian improvements, courtyard with play area,
    underground parking]

11  Preliminary Plan
    [retention of south and north edge poplar rows, low/midrise of
    five/six storeys parallel to SkyTrain, ground-oriented form at
    Hull Street end, two townhouse units along East 20th separated
    by courtyard, interior separation between apartment and townhouse]

12  Tell Us What You Like
    [two sets of six photos: apartment pictures, townhouse pictures
    – comment form handed out to participants and then collected]

 
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

28 July 2016 at 10:44 pm

Posted in IRP-3560 Hull

Blockbustings

leave a comment »

 
An appeal to write a letter in support of the No Tower Coalition and its long struggle against the Kettle/Boffo collaboration led to the compilation of the following list of blockbustings. For over a decade now, what calls itself “planning” in Vancouver has turned into a mishmash of naked spot rezonings and new local area plans. Sometimes the two are so entangled that it becomes difficult to determine exactly how an addled egg has managed to emerge from a chicken cooped up in an open house. Consider only the tortuous histories of King Edward Village, Rize Alliance, and Joyce Station Precinct.

Amidst the muddle, one thing remains clear. Developers always push for the tallest possible towers. And planners collude to set precedents that can prejudice future area planning to the greatest extent possible.

Concrete proposals for Kettle/Boffo development will be a salient matter on 27 July 2016 as speakers line up to address the new Grandview-Woodland local area plan.

 

Council Date        Storeys     Description


2003 July 24        17          King Edward Village for Kingsway & Knight

2006 Jan  24        22          2300 Kingsway for Norquay

2011 Apr  21        16          8495 Granville (Safeway) for Marpole 

2011 July 19        35          8440 Cambie (Marine Gateway) for Marpole

2011 Nov  01        30          Wall Centre Central Park for Renfrew-Collingwood

2012 June 11        22          1401 Comox for West End

2012 Feb  27        21          Rize Alliance for Mt Pleasant

2012 Oct  16        12          955 East Hastings for Downtown Eastside

2016 June 28        30          5050-5080 Joyce (Westbank at Joyce Station)

2016 July 19        12          155 East 37th (Little Mountain) for RPSC

2016 July 27        12          Kettle/Boffo for Grandview Woodland

 
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

24 July 2016 at 11:21 am

Posted in Events

Interim Rezoning Policy

leave a comment »

 
Introduction

The following report on Interim Rezoning Policy makes it possible to assess factors that City of Vancouver obscures in its documents.

Norquay is not affected by the “policy” described below due to its mass rezoning of 1912 properties for Vancouver’s second neighbourhood centre in 2010. But the 1577 properties mass rezoned in 2004 for Vancouver’s first neighbourhood centre at Kingsway & Knight are subject to the policy. This discrepancy is only one of the anomalies that taint the initiative.

Eye on Norquay has taken a particular interest in Interim Rezoning Policy, and in similar provisions of the Rental 100 program which has landed units within Norquay. That interest stems from a broader concern for policies which affect other Vancouver residential areas, especially those that lie in East Vancouver.

On 3 October 2012, Vancouver City Council approved an Interim Rezoning Policy for Increasing Affordable Housing Choices (hereafter cited as IRP).

At this stage, the I for “interim” could stand for indefinite, with regard to both policy specifications and duration of implementation.

 
Public $$$ Handed Out with Little Accountability

IRP and the related Rental 100 program raise huge concerns:

1.  The City of Vancouver makes massive financial concessions to developers to build “secured market rental” — presumably “secured” for the greater of building lifespan or sixty years. Since no present Council can “fetter” a future Council, there is no assurance that any project will not be flipped from rental to strata sale at some point in the future.

2.  Overall concessions in the form of waiver of DCL (development cost levy) and CAC (community amenity contribution) now run toward or beyond $100 million ($54 million for Aquilini alone). These waivers mean that increase in population comes without corresponding funding for amenities and infrastructure. The result will be a strip-mined public realm for Vancouver.

3.  The “affordable” rental scale has imported west side rents into east side projects. This means that developers will concentrate on locations where they can exploit maximized differentials between costs and returns.

4.  The supposed affordable rental scale is not monitored, and evaporates at first rental turnover of a unit. After being handed $54 million in concessions, Aquilini has just implemented a fixed-lease approach that will guarantee 100% turnover after one year (see St. Denis). In effect, the City of Vancouver writes the developer a blank cheque.

 
Problems Specific to IRP

The distinguishing feature of IRP is a de facto rezoning of most of Vancouver with no consultation and no planning. As of 20 April 2016, the policy includes a more detailed mapping. IRP has unleashed widespread speculation and massive land assemblies (see Yaffe).

Unlike Rental 100, IRP can extend off of arterial streets for a distance of “approximately 100 metres” — the length of a football field. Precedent has just been set at 3365 Commercial to push an apartment form into that entire space, contrary to the policy that specifies ground-oriented housing forms for off-arterial locations.

 
sites4irp
 

The City of Vancouver has expressed notions of participating with unit owners in future price appreciation of IRP units designed for ownership. The net result is expansion of conflict of interest — the body that controls zoning will self-deal by sticking its own finger into the pie. For about forty years, the City of Vancouver has already served itself in this fashion with the secretive off-balance-sheet Property Endowment Fund.

 
Six IRP Sites

The current version of IRP states: “As of April 20, 2016, six projects under this policy have been approved or are in process.”

It seems apparent that developer take-up on the policy has been underwhelming. The policy still states:

Once 20 rezoning applications are in process, other proposals will be put on a wait list pending any decision by Council to extend the policy beyond 20 projects.

The six sites listed in the table below appear to be the sites referred to. Passed over in silence by the City of Vancouver is the proposal from Pacific Arbour for a seniors facility on six parcels in the 4600 block on the east side of Dunbar Street. Facing extreme pressure from Dunbar residents, the City of Vancouver rejected the proposal in spring 2013, citing “affordability” concerns.

 
irp-2016
 

To extrapolate from six projects in four years, the City of Vancouver may get around to a “review” of the situation about ten years from now. At that point, developers may have plopped a series of one-off experimental projects mainly into East Vancouver. As it stands now, three of the six have landed in the single local area of Kensington-Cedar Cottage.

Only one of the six IRP’s has so far landed west of Main Street. That atypical project, 1037 West King Edward, displays low FSR, low height, and few units. For this, the developer receives huge upfront financial concessions — waiver of DCL calculated at $374,437 and no levy of CAC.

 
Initial Rents, East and West

 
rents-3365commercial
 
     From page 13 of report on 3365 Commercial
 

 
rents-1037wkingedward
 
     From page 8 of report on 1037 West King Edward
 

 
Tabulated Comparisons

Site Data


                      Site SqFt      FSR     Height     Storeys     Units

1729 E. 33rd             29,587     1.26      37 ft           3        31

3323 E. 4th              36,777     1.45      46 ft           4        54

3120 Knight              17,653     2.08      52 ft           5        51

1037 W. King Edward      19,008     1.48      40 ft       2 - 4        36

3365 Commercial          35,106     2.40      60 ft     3.5 - 6       110

3868 Rupert              29,102     3.60      69 ft           6       112



DCL Waivers


1729 E. 33rd             Not applicable

3323 E. 4th              Not applicable

3120 Knight                    $465,476

1037 W. King Edward            $374,437 

3365 Commercial              $1,077,792

3868 Rupert                         ???



Unit Distributions


                         Studio     1 BR     2 BR     3 BR

1729 E. 33rd             (Strata co-housing plus 2 rental units)

3323 E. 4th  (Life-lease)              8       46      

3120 Knight                   1       32       18

3365 Commercial              31       38       30       11

1037 W. King Edward           8       12       13        3

3868 Rupert                           78       30        4 
 

 
 
References

 
Council Reports for IRP Rezonings

1729 East 33rd
2013 March 12-13
3. REZONING – 1729-1735 East 33rd Avenue
http://council.vancouver.ca/20130312/phea20130312ag.htm

3323 East 4th
2014 March 13
1. REZONING: 3323-3367 East 4th Avenue (Beulah Garden)
http://council.vancouver.ca/20140313/phea20140313ag.htm

3120 Knight
2014 May 20
1. REZONING: 3120-3184 Knight Street
http://council.vancouver.ca/20140520/phea20140520ag.htm

3365 Commercial
2016 May 24
3. REZONING: 3365 Commercial Drive and 1695-1775 East 18th Avenue
http://council.vancouver.ca/20160524/phea20160524ag.htm
2016 June 23
1. REZONING: 3365 Commercial Drive and 1695-1775 East 18th Avenue
http://council.vancouver.ca/20160623/phea20160623ag.htm

1037 West King Edward
2016 June 21
3. REZONING: 1037 West King Edward Avenue
http://council.vancouver.ca/20160621/phea20160621ag.htm

 
City of Vancouver Documents on IRP

Final Report from the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability (2 October 2012)
http://council.vancouver.ca/20121002/documents/rr2.pdf

Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy (4 Oct 2012 / 2 Dec 2013 / 20 Apr 2016)
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/bylaws/bulletin/i002.pdf

 
Council Meetings about IRP

3 October 2012
4. Final Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Housing Affordability
http://council.vancouver.ca/20121003/ptec20121003ag.htm

3 December 2013
4. Development Cost Levy By-law Amendments to the Definition of
For-Profit Affordable Rental Housing
http://council.vancouver.ca/20131203/regu20131203ag.htm

20 April 2016
2. Affordable Home Ownership Pilot Program
http://council.vancouver.ca/20160420/cfsc20160420ag.htm

 
Rejected IRP for 4600 Block East Side of Dunbar Street

Brent Jang. Plan for Dunbar seniors home way up in the air. Globe and Mail (20 Nov 2012)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/plan-for-dunbar-seniors-home-way-up-in-the-air/article5515372/

Naiobh O’Connor. City rejects seniors housing application in Dunbar. Vancouver Courier (6 Mar 2013)
http://www.vancourier.com/news/city-rejects-seniors-housing-application-in-dunbar-1.389855

 
Legal Challenge to IRP / Rental 100 “Affordability”

Carlito Pablo. City of Vancouver to amend STIR and Rental 100 bylaws after legal fight. Georgia Straight (19 Nov 2013)
http://www.straight.com/news/532601/city-vancouver-amend-stir-and-rental-100-bylaws-after-legal-fight

Bob Mackin. West End Neighbours society wonders what is affordable. Vancouver Courier (10 Apr 2014)
http://www.vancourier.com/news/updated-west-end-neighbours-society-wonders-what-is-affordable-1.950526

 
Speculation (Yaffe) and Aquilini (St. Denis/O’Brien)

Barbara Yaffe. City looks to dismantle land assembly. Vancouver Sun (23 Apr 2015: D3
[Brian] Jackson says the land assembly activity that has been accelerating amounts to property speculation. … The activity is likely the result of an interim zoning policy adopted by the city three years ago.

Jen St. Denis / Frank O’Brien. New Aquilini rental tower uses controversial fixed-term tenancy agreements. Business in Vanocuver (8 July 2016)
https://www.biv.com/article/2016/7/fixed-term-rent-row-heats-metro-vancouver/

 
Related Coverage at Eye on Norquay

Rental 100 Red Flag
https://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/rental-100-red-flag/

Vancouver CAC 2013
https://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/vancouver-cac-2013/

Commercial at 18th Ave
https://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/commercial-at-18th-ave/
 
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

9 July 2016 at 11:14 pm

Posted in East & West, IRP