Eye on Norquay

Looking Out for East Vancouver

      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

Chasing Shadows

leave a comment »

or, When Is Recess?

Over the past few days, shadowing has emerged as prime protagonist in the showdown that looms for public hearing over 3. CD-1 Rezoning: 2086-2098 West 7th Avenue, and 2091 West 8th Avenue, set for 28 June 2022.

The modeling of buildings and studies of shadowing have already super-prequeled in the long-running Broadway Plan tragicomedy.

In the body of comment to follow, focus zooms in exclusively on the shadow question at the West 7th / West 8th / Arbutus location. Bear in mind that a quite similar project for Kingsway & Knight was almost routinely approved at public hearing on 14 June 2022. Two remarks on broader context will follow this exploration of the shadow distortions that now stretch over Vancouver’s more western sector.

Into the Shadows

Responding to:  Forever in the Shadows : City Conversation #58

13 June 2022 – https://brianpalmquist.substack.com/p/forever-in-the-shadows
15 June 2022 – https://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2022/06/15/palmquist58-forever-shadows-arbutus-8th/

We recognize that Brian Palmquist and Steven Bohus work hard to ask important questions. This critique is offered in that same spirit – to set forth questions about use and misuse of data and perspectives.



“The building’s height and massing guarantee that every child will arrive on every school day in shade.”

This Palmquist/Bohus statement would not be disputed by CoV or the applicant. The applicant’s original shadow studies are for March 21 / June 21 / September 21 at 8:15 AM. They show that almost all of the schoolyard in shade for all of those months. (Appendix D, p. 7-8) The Palmquist/Bohus shadow study is for June 21st at around 9:00 AM.



June 21 at “around 9:00 AM” – Palmquist/Bohus Graphic



June 21 8:15 AM and 10:30 AM – Applicant Graphic





“The building’s height and massing guarantee that every child will have most of their morning recess in shade.”

Recess does not happen at “around 9:00 AM.” Palmquist/Bohus present no shadow study for 10:30 AM. The applicant shadow study (both in Appendix C and D) shows only the northeast corner of the schoolyard in shade at 10:30 AM on any of March 21 / June 21 / Sept 21.



“The building’s height and massing guarantee that every parent using Delamont Park during the school year in the early to mid afternoon, while they are perhaps awaiting the dismissal of their school age children, will wait mainly in shade and their preschool children will mainly play in shade.”

The Palmquist/Bohus graphic shows shade over Delamont Park on Oct 21 … yet no time of day is specified. For Sept 21 either at 2:00 pm or at 4:00 pm, the applicant shows no shadowing of the park (Appendix D, p. 8). Further note that Condition of Approval 1.1 requires “Design development to eliminate all shadow impact from Delamont Park at any time during either equinox.” (Appendix A, p. 1.)

September 21 at 2:00 PM – Applicant Graphic





Compare These

The Palmquist/Bohus model for a 6-storey building shows no shadowing of the schoolyard on June 21st at 9:00 AM, to make stark contrast with massive shadowing at that particular moment from the 13 storeys proposed for the southern end of the structure.

The applicant shadow study shows no significant shadowing difference between a 6-storey building and the proposed 13-storey on Oct 21 at either 8:00 AM or at 10:30 AM. (Appendix C, p.4)


Human Scale

First context remark. As mass-rezoned Norquay residents in the heart of East Vancouver, who engaged in early and protracted struggle with City of Vancouver planning, we take no delight in shadows and tall buildings. In six pages of comment arising from three “open house” events in mid-2010, months before the Norquay Plan went to public hearing, Joseph Jones led off by identifying human scale as THE key issue. But developers wanted taller – and developers extracted taller from their city planners and politicians.

Over a decade later now, the unveiling of the Broadway Plan has provoked the airy and leafy west side of Vancouver to proclaim, long and loud, yes we want density – only it should be density everywhere, like Paris and Copenhagen. (Even south of West 16th Avenue? Snicker here for Shaughnessy.) So a brand new tune fifes out against an impending Broadway Canyon of Concrete. Where were most of these tootlers when City of Vancouver locked its developer-piloted bomb-sights onto the heart of East Vancouver? Well, back then it was not a backyard issue. Not for them.

Inequity / Twin Towers

Second context remark. On 14 June 2022 Eye on Norquay watched the entire public hearing process for 4. CD-1 Rezoning: 1406-1410 East King Edward Avenue. Coming forward at the same time are two quite similar applications for deep-affordability social housing projects in Vancouver. The first of those twin towers was just approved for East Vancouver, adjacent to Kingcrest Park and Kensington Library. With only one exception, the handful of local-area public speakers expressed little vehemence, an understandable degree of hesitance, and overall, more hope than fear. The entire item took one fraction of one evening to fulfill process for a 177-foot building.

What a divergent state of mind already promises to emerge during the 28 June 2022 considerations that arise from proposing that a mere 155-foot building locate on “that other side of town.” Nevermind who did not go first and why not.


Written by eyeonnorquay

16 June 2022 at 10:34 pm

Stalled Missing Middle

leave a comment »

… Is Not Red Tape
One Out of Five

This comprehensive review of Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre demonstrates that simpler application processes and speedy approval will never guarantee quick completion of new housing projects. This collection of developer-stalled projects degrades public realm in our amenity-deficient mass-rezoned neighborhood.

Housing sometimes take a long time to get built. Developers and senior levels of government blame local municipalities and their staff for these delays. If projects did not have to go through a rezoning, they argue, badly needed “missing middle” housing would be built more quickly. The response is often to make the application process simpler and approval times shorter.

Does improving processing time solve the problem?

The 2010 Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan pre-zoned a residential area of 1,912 properties (1.5 sq km or 370 acres) for small house/duplex, rowhouse, stacked townhouse, and 4-storey apartment building forms. Development permit applications are posted on the City of Vancouver web site, a 2-week period for public comment follows, and the application is approved with conditions by staff. Final approval is granted when the applicant demonstrates that they meet the conditions. No rezoning is required.

Eye on Norquay looked at the 78 “missing middle” projects approved between 2014 and 2020. The City of Vancouver granted conditional approval to most of the 78 Norquay applications within 2 or 3 months.

But this rapid approval time was not enough to ensure that projects were completed quickly. For 13 of the 78 projects approved between January 2014 and December 2020, construction has not even begun. These are projects that we would expect to have been completed by now, or at least for construction to be well underway. But shovels have not yet entered the ground.

Norquay projects approved 2014-2020 and known to be paused calculates at 18% (14 of a total 78). All projects are detailed in the table at the end of this posting.

Why does it take so long for construction to begin after a project has been approved? Causes include inexperienced builders, financing problems, inability or unwillingness to meet conditions, intention to flip, and/or difficulties with presales.

[ See  On Regulation Redesign and Pre-Zoning ]

Case #1

An example is the 4-lot assembly site at 4869 Slocan Street. The application was approved in 2016. The site was subsequently sold and a new application was submitted in 2020. Construction has not yet begun, and the existing houses are being rented.

        4869 Slocan Street


Case #2

Construction on this project approved in 2015 began a few years later, but has stopped several times for long periods. The development now seems abandoned.

        2115 East 33rd Avenue


Case #3

For instance, an application to build 4 rowhouse units at 4826 Duchess Street was approved in 2019 – but for only 3 units. The site looks unoccupied and is currently up for sale.

        4826 Duchess Street


Arrested development does more than delay completion of badly needed new housing. Neighbourhoods look neglected when buildings and landscaping are not maintained on sites with uninhabited houses. These buildings invite squatters, who sometimes start fires because they are trying to work around the gas and hydro services that have been cut off. Empty building sites, even if they are fenced, often become garbage dumps for the surrounding area.

Case #4

A 4-storey apartment was approved for 3 lots at 4715 Nanaimo Street in 2019, but the applicant decided to sell the site. After a fire gutted the one house still standing in September 2021, that house was also demolished. But the debris was left on the ground, and garbage continued to accumulate. The site was finally cleaned up by a new owner in April 2022. This was one of 2 fires on Norquay development sites in 2021.

        4715 Nanaimo Street


We can expect to see developers pause many more approved projects as market sales continue to slow.
Three additional Norquay project sites approved in 2021 are now being advertised for sale.


Approved Norquay Housing Projects Currently Paused

Project Address        Zoning & Housing            Application   Approval    Current
                       Type                        Date          Date        Status

2115 E 33rd Ave        RM-7   Stacked townhouse    Sep 2015      Nov 2015    Paused

2421 E 41st Ave        RT-11  Duplex + infill      Feb 2018      unknown     No action

5080-5104 Chambers St  RM-7   Stacked townhouse    Sep 2018      unknown     Demolition

4826 Duchess St        RM-7   Rowhouse             Nov 2019      Feb 2020    No action *

2628 Duke St           RM-9A  4-storey apartment   Jun 2018      Jul 2018    Demolition

4846-4856 Earles St    RM-7   Stacked townhouse    Mar 2015      unknown     No action *

5056 Earles St         RM-9A  4-storey apartment   Feb 2020      Jun 2020    No action *

5385 Earles St         RM-7   Triplex              Feb 2020      Apr 2020    No action

4715 Nanaimo St        RM-9A  4-storey apartment   May 2019      Jun 2019    Demolition *

4856 Slocan St         RM-7   Triplex + infill     Feb 2020      unknown     No action

4869 Slocan St         RM-9A  4-storey apartment   Sep 2016      Oct 2016    No action *
[new application]                                  Feb 2020      unknown     No action

5092 Slocan St         RM-7   Sixplex              Feb 2020      Apr 2020    No action *

2632 Ward St           RM-7   Triplex              Apr 2018      Jun 2018    No action *

2711 Ward St           RM-7   Triplex              Jan 2018      Feb 2018    No action *

* These building sites have been advertised for sale after projects were approved

Paused  =  Construction Paused
Demolition  =  Demolition Completed


Written by eyeonnorquay

15 June 2022 at 11:54 am

Developing Disrespect

leave a comment »

Why Would No Not Mean No?

The Basic Problem at 3838 Rupert Street

Eye on Norquay has become aware of a disturbing and protracted attempt to force a big-box West Coast Liquor store into a small quiet East Vancouver neighborhood.

Until two recent large developments landed on the opposite SE/NW corners at the intersection of East 22nd Avenue and Rupert Street, this really was a small quiet East Vancouver neighborhood.

        Liquor Store Sign at Right … Then Cross Street to Elementary School … So Near By …


Back in 2017, the City of Vancouver rezoning report for the massive new block-sized building at 3868-3898 Rupert Street and 3304-3308 East 22nd Avenue cited the Renfrew-Collingwood Community Vision as justification for a “mini-node” to provide

        a local, neighbourhood-serving commercial hub that offers convenient access
        to day-to-day retail needs within a residential neighbourhood.

After stating that, how could City of Vancouver ever allow application for a regional drive-to big-box liquor store? Probably because developers and their retailers have some supposed “right” to try to do anything anywhere, as many times as they care to try?

This sort of retail belongs ten blocks down the hill – along the Grandview Highway strip with Walmart, Canadian Tire, Staples, Great Canadian Superstore, and Lowe’s. Where it still would not be allowed under the current policy map …

This approach to city planning – get one silo do the big building, then let another silo oversee the retail use – almost guarantees that distrust toward new development will upshift into automatic fear and loathing, right across residential Vancouver.

Thoroughly Refused Already in 2021

On 20 May 2021 the City of Vancouver rejected an application to permit John Teti and his West Coast Liquor Company to take over a 3670 sq ft retail space at 3737 Rupert Street (DP-2020-00937). The Board of Variance upheld that rejection.

Round Two in 2022

Only one year later, John Teti’s West Coast Liquor has come back swinging a bigger fist to go after a retail space with 200 more square feet in the other big new building.. For this guy, no did not mean no.

On 8 April 2022 City of Vancouver said no yet again to 3888 sq ft at 3838 Rupert St (DP-2021-01028). Now Teti goes again to Board of Variance, probably on 19 July 2021, to try somehow to stomp his will onto a community that continues to grow in awareness and resistance.

Why would any part of Vancouver want to see development come onto its doorstep, when this sort of endless bullying of a local community seems to result?

Such a Loser Proposition

Extensive argument can be made against this retail in this location. No such argument should need to be made ever, much less repeated.

Twice now, City of Vancouver succinctly recognizes that Teti’s proposal for a West Coast Liquor big-box store

ONE  fails to comply with applicable policies and guidelines

TWO  is wrong for the location

THREE  provokes objection from area residents

A Few of the Details

Start with City of Vancouver Liquor Store Guidelines.

The foremost and obvious fail of any liquor retail at this location is right-across-the-street proximity to Renfrew Elementary School – specifically prohibited by the guidelines under Section 4. No appeal to technicality of distance measurement should be attempted by the applicant. To make this maneuver constitutes clear and gross abuse of regulatory intent.



The map provided in the guidelines shows that it would be hard to find a less appropriate area of Vancouver for this big-box liquor to try to take over.



Next, consider how this proposal seeks to establish a Type 3 store, the largest possible class of drive-to operation. The associated parking and traffic would overwhelm this little City of Vancouver “mini-node.”

Last, look at this recent display of community opposition ignited by Teti’s attempt to promo his Board of Variance appeal through an “open house.” Anyone acquainted with community organizing will see right away how strong an opposition this protest action signals. (Additional news bit: reportback that two different groups with no previous connection came out to do sidewalk protest. So even stronger.)



Things You Can Do

When the Board of Variance agenda confirms a date for 3838 Rupert Street, you could email in a letter of objection to this application, following the instructions provided on their web site. They already know the main points, as set out above, but this is not a matter of knowledge. It is a matter of reinforcing Board of Variance understanding that this West Coast Liquor big-box store is not wanted in this location.

Update of 16 June 2022: the notification postcard has been received by a local area resident.



Anyone who would like to make contact with the network of local organizers against West Coast Liquor right next to Renfrew Elementary School can channel that message through Eye on Norquay. Then those organizers will respond to as seems appropriate.


Written by eyeonnorquay

13 June 2022 at 9:07 am

Posted in News, Photos, Statements

Bizarre PR

with one comment

Why is an Anonymous Developer Trying to End Run
Area Planning for the Nanaimo SkyTrain Station?

On 20 May 2022, toward end of day on the Friday before the Victoria Day long weekend, Kenneth Chan of Daily Hive posted this peculiar item about the potential for a rapid dumping of three very tall jammed-together towers right next to the Nanaimo SkyTrain station:

Dense, transit-oriented housing finally eyed for Nanaimo SkyTrain station

Far into the posting, the “news” finally emerges:

        The entities behind the proposal are not known at this time, but the concept
        is in the early stages of being considered by City of Vancouver staff through
        the pre-application enquiry process.

Somehow, this circumstance is supposed to amount to “an idea gaining momentum” – an idea that ought to “trigger” something.

What is going on here?



One question explodes into a lot more questions …

Is a land speculator pressuring the City of Vancouver for a density bailout?

Who is planting this bizarre story about an informal pre-application inquiry, and why?

Will the City of Vancouver eventually claim that this blockbusting grab has obtained precedence by being “in the pipeline” ahead of any planning for the Nanaimo SkyTrain Station area?

Given the City of Vancouver’s repeated top prioritizing of Nanaimo and 29th Avenue station areas (see Appendix C for timeline), why did the Renfrew/Rupert station area jump ahead?

How will the Draft Vancouver Plan, first released to public view in April 2022 (one short month earlier), relate to this blatant maneuver to prempt “planning”?

Is this strange PR onslaught a panic response to the Draft Vancouver Plan?

How could the City of Vancouver ever reconcile three blockbusting oversized jammed-together towers, utterly dominated by luxury condo units, with its own overarching Big Idea about inequity – especially in this location?



With no nearby retail context whatsoever, and little height, how could the City of Vancouver justify this immediate mega density dump into a current RS zone (plus off-arterial)?

(History note: City of Vancouver told Norquay Working Group that its plan for a neighbourhood centre could not happen because of need to support existing retail zoning along Kingsway.)

Given the elevations and proximity, how much shadow from those imagined towers would impact Trout Lake and John Hendry Park, especially in the crucial fall-winter season?

Will City of Vancouver’s past emphatic assertions about placing “rental zoning” around the Nanaimo and 29th Avenue stations evaporate because one big speculating developer has already made different profit “plans”?


Appendix A – Sharks on the Streets – Two Right-Now Photos


     On East 24th Avenue


     On East 26th Avenue


Appendix B – Draft Vancouver Plan – April 2022

The Draft Vancouver Plan came into public view in April 2022. One month ago.

The draft plan includes these relevant directions (page 49):

Direction L1.5.1: Protect and renew existing affordable housing and expand opportunities for diverse housing options with an emphasis on purpose-built market and below-market rental and social housing.

Direction L1.5.5: Built form. Aim for a more distributed (versus concentrated) pattern of development that allows for mid- to high-rise buildings (12-18 storeys) close to the station and also off of main streets. On major project sites, taller buildings will be considered where significant public realm and amenity contributions are provided.


Appendix C – Timeline for Nanaimo SkyTrain Station

– 1987 –
Nanaimo/29th Avenue station areas plan
vii, 119 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
“Approved as amended, by City Council, May 20th, 1987”
“June 1987”

Nanaimo/29th Avenue station areas plan summary
20 pages : illustrations, map ; 21 cm.



– 2009 –
The area east of Nanaimo Street along the SkyTrain route to the 29th Avenue station was originally included in Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre planning. After three and a half years of community engagement in a formal planning process, the City of Vancouver on 2 November 2009 abruptly severed that area from “Norquay.”

– 2010 –
The two station areas are part of Norquay, says this panel from a January 2010 open house.



– 2017 –
Housing Vancouver 3 Year Action Plan 2018-2020,Action 1B, p. 7

… prioritize secured rental housing and social housing near transit hubs …



– 2019 –
“Advance Work Stream or Test-Out Action”
A City-wide Plan for Vancouver: Report back on General Planning and
Engagement Process, July 9, 2019




Written by eyeonnorquay

25 May 2022 at 11:41 pm

Shadowing of Oppenheimer Park

From: Jeanette Jones

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 4:45 PM

To: kennedy.stewart@vancouver.ca ; clrbligh@vancouver.ca ; clrboyle@vancouver.ca ; Adriane Carr ; De Genova, Melissa ; clrdominato@vancouver.ca ; clrfry@vancouver.ca ; clrhardwick@vancouver.ca ; clrkirby-yung@vancouver.ca ; clrswanson@vancouver.ca ; clrwiebe@vancouver.ca

Cc: Hrushowy, Neil ; Donnie.Rosa@vancouver.ca

Subject: Shadowing of Oppenheimer Park

To: Mayor and Council
cc. Neil Hrushowy, Assistant Director for Community Planning
Donnie Rosa, General Manager, Board of Parks and Recreation

Re: Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law in the FC-1 District, and to the Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer District Official Development Plan (DEOD ODP) By-law to Increase Social Housing and Encourage Heritage Conservation (Agenda Item #1, Public Hearing of May 19, 2022)

The Referral Report for this item acknowledges that the proposed amendments to the zoning are likely to increase the amount of shadowing on Oppenheimer Park to some extent. The Planning Department (PDS) and the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation (Park Board) view the impact of that shadowing quite differently.

PDS states that increased shadowing will be “minimal,” and will occur late in the day primarily between September and March. The building envelope in some locations has been modified to decrease shadowing (Appendix E, pp. 2-3). To completely eliminate shadowing between 4pm and 6pm would result in a decrease of an estimated 175 social housing units. PDS favours keeping the existing solar access period of 10am to 4pm (p. 10). The Park Board argues that Oppenheimer Park is a well-used park in a park-deficient neighbourhood where many residents have access to no other green space. The proposed buildings would result in “significant loss of sunlight after 4pm and into the evening for most of the year” at a time of day when parks are heavily used. The Park Board recommends extending the solar access period from 4pm to 6pm (p. 14).

No shadow studies accompany the Referral Report. I asked PDS to post the shadow studies relevant to this Council Agenda item, but they have told me that they are unable to do so. Our correspondence is shown below. It does not seem possible to adequately evaluate the differing staff perspectives without access to the shadow studies on which those perspectives are based.

One aim of the proposed zoning changes is to enable 100% social housing projects in this area to proceed through the development permit process rather than through rezoning (p. 3). Individual projects would not come to Council for approval. That means Council has this one opportunity to consider the shadowing effects of the proposed zoning amendments on Oppenheimer Park.

I ask that you refer this item back to staff so that the relevant shadow studies can be included with the Referral Report.

Jeanette Jones

5 May 2022 10:03 AM

From: Jeanette Jones

Sent: May 5, 2022 10:03 AM

To: Neil Hrushowy, Assistant Director for Community Planning

Re: Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law in the FC-1 District, and to the Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer District Official Development Plan (DEOD ODP) By-law to Increase Social Housing and Encourage Heritage Conservation

Hello Neil Hrushowy,

I note that the Referral Report for this item (Agenda Item #1 for the May 19 Public Hearing), indicates some disagreement between PDS and the Parks Board about the effects of higher buildings near Oppenheimer Park. It is clear that shadowing on the park will be increased, but no shadow studies have been included in the report.

Would it be possible for these shadow studies to be made publicly available? It is difficult for me to evaluate the differing staff perspectives without this data. I believe that it will also be difficult for Council members.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Jeanette Jones

11 May 2022 2:43 PM

From: Hrushowy, Neil

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 2:43 PM

To: Jeanette Jones

Subject: RE: Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law in the FC-1 District, and to the Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer District Official Development Plan (DEOD ODP) By-law to Increase Social Housing and Encourage Heritage Conservation

Jeanette: Apologies for the tardy response. Getting to the final direction on the appropriateness of sharing the requested information with you ended up taking much longer than I originally anticipated.

Unfortunately, we won’t be able to share the detailed shadow studies in this way. I appreciate your point on its relevance in understanding the difference in perspectives as expressed by the Parks Board. We will be prepared to speak in detail on this topic in front of Council.

Thank you very much for your inquiry and your patience in waiting for my reply.



Neil Hrushowy, PhD, MS
A/Director | Community Planning
Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability | City of Vancouver
515 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver BC V5Z 4A8
T: 604.829.9622 | neil.hrushowy@vancouver.ca

I am thankful to live and work on the traditional territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish Nation), and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations

11 May 2022 3:27 PM

Re: Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law in the FC-1 District, and to the Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer District Official Development Plan (DEOD ODP) By-law to Increase Social Housing and Encourage Heritage Conservation

Jeanette Jones
Wed 2022-05-11 3:27 PM

Hello Neil,

Thank you for your response to my question about posting the shadow studies relevant to this Agenda item for the May 19th council meeting, and for taking the time to clarify a final direction.

Unless the public and Council can understand exactly where the shadows will fall on Oppenheimer Park, they cannot evaluate the differing perspectives of the Planning Department and the Park Board on the consequences of the shadowing.

I find it hard to see why this information cannot be made public. Can you explain further?

Jeanette Jones

12 May 2022 1:58 PM

RE: Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law in the FC-1 District, and to the Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer District Official Development Plan (DEOD ODP) By-law to Increase Social Housing and Encourage Heritage Conservation

Hrushowy, Neil
Thu 2022-05-12 1:58 PM

Hello Jeanette,

I should clarify that it’s not that this information can’t be made public, but rather it needs to be made public in a way that is fair to all members of the public and Council and in no way privileges some over others. Again, we will be prepared to speak in detail in front of Council on the shadow studies so that Council, and the public, can have all the information in front of them ahead of making any decision. The report itself does provide discussion on this topic; the graphics would confirm the language in the report that refers to design guidelines that will preserve sunlight in the park from 10 am to 4 pm between the March and September equinoxes.


“Following City of Vancouver planning practice, the proposed urban design regulations will preserve sunlight in the park from 10 am to 4 pm between the March and September equinoxes through building design. These regulations ensure no new shadows will be cast from potential redevelopments on the south side of the park along East Cordova Street, and minimal potential new shadows from the east and west sides of the park on Dunlevy Avenue and Jackson Avenue (refer to Appendices A and E).”

Appendices A and E lay out in detail the design guidelines that will result in the solar access described in the quotation, above, from the report.

Again, thank you for reaching out and we look forward to your comments at the hearing.



Neil Hrushowy, PhD, MS
A/Director I Community Planning
Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability I City of Vancouver
515 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver BC V5Z 4A8
T: 604.829.9622 | neil.hrushowy@vancouver.ca

I am thankful to live and work on the traditional territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish Nation), and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations


Written by eyeonnorquay

12 May 2022 at 6:03 pm

Last Generation

Vancouver City Planning 1960 to 1995
A Scraped Checklist

Note: The information provided in this posting is intended as backstory, to complement the information recently assembled for Endgame Kitsilano. Vancouver City Planning is very hard to make sense of. Hope this helps.

The appended listing of 88 bibliographic items derives from a read-through of over a thousand records in the online catalogues of Vancouver Public Library and the University of British Columbia.

The foremost principle of selection is relevance to the history of Vancouver’s fabled 23 neighborhoods, and relevance to facets of what city planners notably did to Vancouver in the three decades that led up to the dubious and nonproductive CityPlan era of 1995-2010.

This curated listing offers the browsability of a virtual library shelf. Keyword stabs into electronic aether for scattered records can never allow a user to take this sort of easy look-see.

More than one city planner tells the story of having had to “go to the library” to find a copy of their own department’s published materials. (These are the people in charge of keeping track of what happens to Vancouver’s built form.)

The City of Vancouver Planning Department is an evident accelerating shambles of perpetual turnover and routine loss of institutional memory. Otherwise, planning staff would scan these 88 selected items, not to mention other older materials, in order to make them readily available to the taxpayers who have funded their activities.

Now well into the digital era, current documents require no scanning. Yet City of Vancouver planning materials are regularly disappeared from public access. Nor likely ever to be retrievable from a library. Nor obtainable from the Internet Archive, whose web-crawl access gets mechanically interdicted.

Why do city planners seek to delete their work as fast as something newer can be overlaid? This seems very like the sustainability that sends one usable building to the landfill so a newer one can be “planned” for and profited from. All frenzy to the GDP.

Here is a browsable list of terms to be found among the selected titles: 29th Avenue Station | Arbutus | Broadway Station | Cedar Cottage | Chinatown | Downtown | Downtown Eastside | Downtown South | East Vancouver | Fairview | Gastown | Grandview-Woodlands | Hastings-Sunrise | Joyce Station | Kingsway | Kitsilano | Marpole | Mount Pleasant | Nanaimo Station | Oakridge | Renfrew | Riley Park | Shaughnessy | Southlands | Strathcona | West End | Yaletown

Here is a suggestive list of a few terms that will NOT be found: Collingwood | Dunbar | Fraserview | Kensington | Kerrisdale | Killarney | Sunset | Victoria | West Point Grey.

Why not findable? The likely short answer is, unless the area is one or more of (1) poorer (2) exploitable (3) privileged for special protection (4) north of 16th Avenue – planner radar passed over that area. Until the formulation of those nine feckless “community visions.”

Vancouver City Planning 1960-1995 : a Scraped Checklist

[items at Vancouver Public Library and/or UBC Library]


Chinatown, Vancouver, B.C. : design proposal for improvement
14, [2] leaves : illustrations, plans


Downtown Eastside : a preliminary study / W E Graham
50 pages
"Examines the phenomenon we often refer to as Skid Road,
which overlaps the East End of Downtown and the inner part
of the eastern residential and industrial redevelopment areas.
The study recognizes that planning for the area must be
considered firstly in human terms and secondly in physical
terms. Facts and figures to justify this are presented. It
also attempts to dispel some misconceptions about local
habits and inhabitants" – p. 8
"June, 1965"


Urban renewal scheme no. 3, Strathcona; summary report
30 leaves : illustrations


Cedar Cottage - Renfrew study
vi, 18 p. : ill. (some col.) ; 23 x 36 cm.

City of Vancouver urban renewal program, scheme 3 :
sub-area 1, Strathcona : appendices
[72] pages ; 28 cm.


Skid road survey : Vancouver
34 pages ; map ; 28 cm.


Fairview slopes / Rick Elligott & John Zacharias
54 p. : ill. ; 22 x 36 cm.


Broadway West, a community improvement project
9 leaves : ill. ; 22 x 28 cm.
"August 1974"

Fairview Slopes : the feasibility of preservation /
Sussex Group
38, [30] p. [4] leaves of plates : ill., plans ; 22 x 36 cm.

Fairview Slopes building heritage : a study of those buildings
deserving preservation
61 pages : illustrations, map ; 22 x 36 cm.

Fairview town : design concepts, area 6, False Creek /
Station Six Team
[8] leaves, [8] leaves of plates : ill. ; 36 cm.

Gastown Chinatown walking tour
1 map : illustrations ; 53 x 67. 5 cm, on sheet 61 x 88 cm.
On the reverse of the map text includes a history, economics,
and notes on 37 points of interest in Gastown and Chinatown,
with sketches of some of the buildings.

Shaping the future : the City Planning Department's goals and
objectives for 1974
54 pages : illustrations, plans
Precedes the Vancouver City Planning Department's Annual review.


Fairview Slopes: a proposal for conservation and development /
Harold Kalman – Vancouver Heritage Advisory Committee
4 pages

Kitsilano area planning program: apartment neighborhood plan
19, [9] leaves

West End official development plan
15 leaves : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"July 1975."

West End planning policies and design guidelines
1975 / 1980 / 1984

Vancouver local areas
[no collation]


The Kitsilano neighbourhood plan : [summary]
1 folded sheet (16 pages) : illustrations, maps ; 56 x 87 cm.,
folded to 28 x 22 cm. + 3 sheets.
Includes 3 pages of addendum (1980)
"November 1977."

A review of local area planning : report for discussion,
September  1977
ii, 20 pages : illustrations, map ; 28 cm.

Yaletown : an area for preservation and change (draft)
26, [11] l. : illustrations
"June 1977"


Housing families at high densities : a resource document
outlining needs, principles, and recommendations for
designing medium and high density housing for families
with young children
iii, 120 pages : illustrations ; 22 x 29 cm.
"October 1978."
Bibliography: p. 115-120

Kingsway Task Force study : technical report
vi, 89 p. : ill., maps ; 35 cm.
Bibliography: page 89

Riley Park : a social report / John A. Jessup
iv, 67 leaves ; 28 cm.
Includes bibliography


Grandview-Woodland area policy plan.
Part 1, Grandview-Victoria
(single family, duplex and conversion areas)
24, [3] pages : maps ; 36 cm.

The Marpole plan
71 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"October 1979"

Vancouver local areas : statistics compiled from
the 1971 and 1976 Canada censuses
48 pages : map ; 28 cm.
"April 1979"


Downtown core height study /
Musson, Cattell & Associates
93 pages : ill.

Marpole plan summary
[no collation]

Yaletown, a future of preservation and change
41 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Bibliography: pages 37-41


8 years after : case studies under
discretionary zoning in Vancouver /
Patricia French Ltd.
[12] pages : col. ill. ; 28 cm.

The First Shaughnessy plan
iv, 94 pages in various pagings : illustrations, maps

The Vancouver special : report
iii, 44 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.


Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer design guidelines
30 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
"A written and illustrated summary of the intent of
many of the policies and regulations contained in the
Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer policy plan and
Official development plan."
"October 1982"
"Adopted by City Council, October 26, 1982"

Downtown Eastside/Oppenheimer policy plan
73 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.

First Shaughnessy plan : background report
40 p. : maps ; 28 cm.

First Shaughnessy design guidelines
47 p. [51 p.] : ill. ; 28 cm.
"Adopted by City Council May 11, 1982"
"May 1982"

Grandview-Woodland area policy plan.
Part 2, Commercial Drive
32 pages : maps ; 28 cm.
"April 1982"


Grandview-Woodland area policy plan.
Part 3, Britannia area plan
40, 5 pages : maps ; 28 cm.
"August 1983"
"Approved by City Council April 12, 1983"

The Vancouver coreplan : a proposal for discussion
89 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"May 1983."


An analysis of the RS-1A zones in Cedar Cottage,
Grandview-Woodland and Kitsilano / Gillian Cortese
57 p. : maps ; 28 cm.

West End : planning policies and design guidelines
4, 18 p. ill ; 28 cm.


East Vancouver neighbourhoods study report /
East Vancouver Neighbourhoods Study Board ;
project managers, Robin Coote, Bill Thomson
viii, 40, [29] leaves ; 28 cm.
"September 1985"

Hastings-Sunrise plan
xii, 199, [18] pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"Approved by City Council, May 28, 1985"

Hastings-Sunrise plan : summary
32 pages : illustrations, maps ; 26 cm.
"This document is a summary of the Hastings-Sunrise plan,
approved by City Council on May 28th, 1985" – p. [1]

Mount Pleasant overall policy plan : a framework
for community development
ii, 76 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"December 1985"
"Amended March 18, 1986 by City Council"

Vancouver local areas, 1971-1981 : statistics compiled
from the Canada census
62 p. : maps ; 28 cm.

Vancouver Plan Housing Program summary report
[Reports to Council, subject:]
1 volumes (various pagings) : illustrations ; 28 cm.
"March 20, 1985"


Apartment vacancy rates, 1975-1986
4 pages, graph, map tables
(Vancouver Plan Monitoring Program - information update)

Hastings Sunrise policies and guidelines
4 pages

Mount Pleasant : overall policy plan : a framework for
community development
Rev. March 18, 1986
ii, 76 pages : illustrations.

Secondary suites in RS-1 areas
32 pages; maps;

Strata title and cooperative conversion guidelines
5 pages

The Vancouver plan : the City's strategy for managing change
16 pages : illustrations, maps, charts ; 28 cm.
This plan is an outgrowth of: The Vancouver coreplan /
City of Vancouver, Planning Dept., as modified in response
to public comment and adopted by City Council.
"July 1986."

A walking tour through history
Chinatown / Downtown / Gastown / Mount Pleasant /
Shaughnessy / Strathcona / Yaletown
[7 leaflets]

West End commercial areas policy plan
58 p. : ill., maps : 28 cm.

West End: planning policies and design guidelines.
18 pages; diagrams; maps.

West End residential areas policy plan.
Report 1, Introduction, description and issues
37 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.


Broadway Station area plan
196 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"Approved as amended, by City Council, June 23, 1987"
"July 1987"

Draft Southlands plan
[Reports to Council, subject:]
[14] pages in various pagings ; 28 cm.
"December 2, 1987"

First Shaughnessy design guidelines and the
Shaughnessy architectural and landscape inventory
51 pages : illustrations ; 28 cm.
"October 1987"
"The Shaughnessy architectural and landscape inventory,
adopted by Council on October 20, 1987 is included
as Appendix B of this document"

Joyce Station area plan
vii, 168 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"Approved as amended by City Council, May 20th, 1987"
"June 1987"

Joyce Station area plan summary
24 pages : illustrations, map ; 22 cm.

Nanaimo/29th Avenue station areas plan
vii, 119 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"Approved as amended, by City Council, May 20th, 1987"
"June 1987"

Nanaimo/29th Avenue station areas plan summary
20 pages : illustrations, map ; 21 cm.

Transfer of density policy and procedure
2 pages


Downtown South - towards a new neighbourhood :
a briefing paper
12 pages : illustrations ; maps

Secondary suites in RS-1 areas 1986 and 1987 city wide policy
73 pages : illustrations

Southlands plan
xiv, 96 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"March 8, 1988"

Vancouver local areas 1986 : 100% data from the Canada census
52 pages : maps


Community development plan for Mount Pleasant
111 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.
"February 1989"

Community development plan for Mount Pleasant : summary
[25] pages : illustrations, maps ; 22 cm.
"May 1989"
"Approved by City Council on October 6, 1987" – p. [1]

Downtown South urban study / Aitken Wreglesworth Associates
15 pages & appendices; diagrams, maps, tables

Evaluation of social mix in Kitsilano :
Kitsilano local area planning program
13 pages : tables, graphs

Local area planning in Vancouver -
citizen participation and priorities
48 pages

Updated guidelines for high density housing
for families with children
14 pages

Vancouver local areas 1986 : 20% data from the Canada census
27 pages : maps


Central Area plan : goals and land use policy 
"Adopted by Vancouver City Council, December 3, 1991"
[4], 40 pages : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm.


Cityplan : a proposal to set "directions for Vancouver"
16 pages


Arbutus neighbourhood policy plan
32 pages : illustrations

Greenways and urban landscape inventory implementation
18 pages

Report on the Grandview-Woodlands community plan project /
Grandview-Woodlands Area Services Team
17, 24 pages : illustrations ; 28 cm.
"June 1993"

Vancouver CityPlan toolkit
ca. 200 p. : ill., maps.
May 19, 1993


Choices : results from the Cityplan making choices questionnaire
23 pages : graphs

Community profiles
Binder - complete set of 23 community profiles

Vancouver local areas, 1981-1991 :
100% and 20% data from the Canada Census
55 pages
"September 1994"


Oakridge Langara policy statement
38 p. : illustrations, maps

Vancouver Greenways plan : draft
59 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
"June 1, 1995"


Two out-of-scope items for a neighborhood lost in the middle –
City of Vancouver rapidly decided to longer regard this
inconvenient planning as having "active" status ...


Kingsway and Knight Neighbourhood Centre housing area plan
"Adopted by City Council July 8, 2004"
39 pages : illustrations (some color)

Kingsway and Knight Neighbourhood Centre shopping area :
public realm and pedestrian/traffic improvements plan
39 pages : illustrations (some color)
"Adopted by City Council July 6, 2004"


Written by eyeonnorquay

11 May 2022 at 5:01 pm