September to October 2018

leave a comment »

 
At the tail end of the Vision Vancouver era, two hasty measures galloped to public hearing on 18-19 September 2018 for “consideration” by a severely limping lame-duck council. The haste was so unseemly that Council found itself aborting the second item amid trying to deal with the first. The cause? Some combination of running out of time and fearing to face one more massive line-up of speakers. (All of this following on very plausible rumors of Council seeking to rejig meeting procedures to impede speakers to Council.)

 

 
https://council.vancouver.ca/20180918/phea20180918ag.htm
 

Only two members from 2014-2018 Council will return for the 2018-2022 term — Adriane Carr (Green) and Melissa De Genova (NPA) — following the municipal election held on 20 October 2018. Both of these councillors voted against Item 5:

5. REZONING: Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law for Most RS Zones to Allow Two-Family Dwellings (Duplexes) to Increase Housing Choice

Together the NPA and Green parties now enjoy a majority vote of eight out of eleven on the newly elected council. It seems clear that an unfettered new council could smother Vision Vancouver’s last fetid gasp with a repeal. This power was confirmed at the time in a tweet issued by retired municipal lawyer Jonathan Baker:

 

 

On the other hand, today’s double hearsay suggests that the Green faction may wish to let the matter rest.

        Globe and Mail reporter Frances Bula, though, told me Tuesday that she’d asked Green leader
        Adriane Carr about this possibility last month. Carr said her party wouldn’t go so far as to reverse
        the duplex legalization after its passage.
        https://www.sightline.org/2018/10/24/bc-local-elections-housing-policy/

On the other other hand, though, Greens have started making new public noise about a “citywide plan”:

Naoibh O’Connor. Vancouver Green Party Councillors to Push for Citywide Plan. Vancouver Courier (23 Oct 2018) https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/vancouver-green-party-councillors-to-push-for-citywide-plan-1.23473609

How realistic would it be to embark on a new citywide plan right after Vision Vancouver has mass rezoned for generally unaffordable duplex across “99% of the 68,000 RS zoned lots across the city”?
(p. 5 of https://council.vancouver.ca/20180724/documents/p6.pdf)

No backward glance equals missing a prime opportunity to signal a sharp break with the hoary Vision Vancouver tradition of do-it-yesterday and ram-it-right-through. To leave that warped plank askew across the platform would carry on with the botches and scotches that have been parading as “planning” in Vancouver during the past dozen years or so.

Whether the Vision Vancouver sayonara stands or not, one solid piece of evidence suggests that Duplex-into-RS is a shoot-from-the-hip dud:

 

 
 

Advertisements

Written by eyeonnorquay

24 October 2018 at 4:48 pm

Posted in News

Questions to Staff

leave a comment »

 
A Case Study in “Duplex” Impact on Norquay

 

 

 
Canning the Clarifications

At some undetermined point in the relatively recent past, Vancouver City Council streamlined the “process” of public hearing by having councillors direct “questions to staff” via email for later, canned, premeditated, bulk “response” by staff. This format often leaves the onlooker wondering what the “question” actually was. Most of the verbal exchange between councillor and staff has been killed in the interests of control and speed. This innovation typifies what Vision Vancouver has done to public hearing procedures over the past ten years. Some glutton for wonk could provide a great public service by timelining such changes in procedure.

What follows is a case study in the quality of planning staff response to questions. A comparison with detailed independent data leads to one frightening result. This result brings into question all of the newish mode of planning staff’s rapid-fire bulk-packaged response to “questions to staff.”

 
From and For the Record

On the evening of 19 September 2018, a member of planning staff delivered bulked planning staff answers to questions from councillors as part of the public hearing on

5. REZONING: Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law for Most RS Zones to Allow
Two-Family Dwellings (Duplexes) to Increase Housing Choice
https://council.vancouver.ca/20180918/phea20180918ag.htm

Below are three transcriptions, in chronological order, of remarks made during the five minutes that run from 3:00 to 8:00 on the video record at

http://civic.neulion.com/cityofvancouver/index.php?clipid=3496176,005


At what price … Typically in the market we see a lot more of this product on the east side than the west side because zoning enables duplex in a lot more neighborhoods on the east side than the west side.

The neighborhood that is most likely for duplexes to work is in the northeast quadrant
[followed by specific mention of Grandview-Woodland]

In our experience on the east side of Vancouver, where we see a lot more of duplex zoning in place in neighborhoods such as Norquay for example, the uptake of building duplexes in zones where duplex is enabled is quite low, about 1% annually since 2013. It’s happening slowly.

 
Eye on Norquay Direct-Observation Data

 

    New-Build Applications by Type / Zonings (excluding RM-9A)

    Outright Duplexes    Conditional RT-11    Conditional RM-7


2014         26                    5                    5

2015         14                    8                    9

2016          5                    3                    8

2017         13                    4                    3

Totals       58                   20                   25


Note: Conditional RT-11 and conditional RM-7 = More than a duplex

Note: Total land parcels in RT-11 and RM-7 = 1648




       Land Parcels Assembled for Conditional Projects

          20 Assembled RT-11      25 Assembled RM-7
    
          One    Two              One   Two   Three   Four

2014       3      2                2     2      1

2015       6      2                2     6      1

2016       2      1                      7             1

2017       3      1                1     1      1

Totals    14     12  =  26         5    32      9      4  =  50


Total of  20  Building Sites Assembled for RT-11
    from  26  component parcels

Total of  25  Building Sites Assembled for Conditional RM-7
    from  50  component parcels 

 

 
Comments on Assertions and Data

In the “answers to questions,” there seems to be a lack of clarity operating between (1) report on actual experience with duplex in Vancouver, and (2) projection of impact of duplex into existing RS zoning.

It appears that planners anticipate that East Vancouver will continue to be the primary area for construction of duplex, even after the possibility of duplex has been extended citywide. This accords with previous Eye on Norquay analysis in The Duplex Set-Up. The obvious question is, why would City of Vancouver plan for such continuance of inequitable distribution? The most apparent answer is that planning has designed RS duplex specifications to perpetuate inequity in order to avoid or minimize west side blowback.

The 1% per year statistic for Norquay seems decontextualized, minimized, and misleading. If 58 parcels have accommodated outright duplex 2014-2017, there remain an unmentioned additional 45 parcels / assemblies that have accommodated yet more new development. The component number of parcels for those other 45 new strata developments actually calculates to 76. Thus an overall total of 58 + 76 parcels have been affected by new development over the four-year period of 2014-2017. That total of 134 as a proportion of 1648 yields a redevelopment percentage of 8.1%, which annualizes to 2% — double the figure provided by staff. A factor of 100% difference in reported result is not a minor difference. Norquay’s on-the-ground experience is that conversion of more affordable old to far-less-affordable new is NOT “happening slowly.”

Further note that our tabulated data excludes 2013 and 2018. Beyond that, the foregoing analysis takes no account of the other larger-scale redevelopments that have taken place under RM-9A (5 projects) and CD-1 (very large projects = 3 during period and 2 underway) — projects that have added well upward of 500 more dwelling units to the same local area.
 
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

27 September 2018 at 9:52 am

Posted in East & West, Events, News

The Duplex Set-Up

leave a comment »

 
Who Benefits?

 
Does this photo of Gregor Robertson look woolly? It was grabbed from defective City Council video on the evening of 18 Sept 2018 during a public hearing on duplex housing in “most RS zones.” What wool is being pulled over whose eyes, and to conceal what?

 

 

First of all, a declaration. Residents of Norquay have little skin in the game when it comes to duplexing the sixty-some thousands of RS (single-family) zoned properties that remain across Vancouver. Norquay and next-door cousin Kingsway-Knight were mass-rezoned out of RS in 2010 and 2004 respectively. The number of those parcels totaled around 3400. This was one-twentieth of the RS that has remained until now. Two working-class immigrant neighbourhoods were conscripted for experimentation. The two adjacent areas constitute the geographic heart of East Vancouver, and sit at the eye of Vancouver’s gentrification hurricane.

That said, it is true that an expanded playing field of sixty-some thousand additional properties might diffuse the speculation frenzy that a series of “new community plans” has fomented over the past decade. Perhaps the storm of noise and traffic and dirt might slacken by finally doing a “Go West” that reduces the concentration effect? Alas, the apparent Duplex Set-Up stratagem suggests otherwise.

 
East and West

News reporting on the approval of duplex in RS has raised a point that merits elaboration. The general point is stated by urban planner Andy Yan in a Vancouver Sun article of 21 September 2018 [1]:

 

 

More than five years ago Eye on Norquay quantified east-west population disparity in Vancouver [2]:

 

 

This new RS-to-duplex maneuver promises to widen that east-west population gap even further.

 
Supplyist Enthusiasms

A recent networking of supplyists has made a thing out of hit-squadding on public hearings. These activists profess a two-fold belief:

        Any form of denser new housing anywhere is a priori good.
        The economics and the social consequences do not matter, since housing is in crisis.

Supplyists front-loaded this public hearing, and may now revel in imagining that they have romped over the enemy in a major skirmish. Perhaps they have, assuming their creed is the only metric.

A bit further into the first evening, one supplyist (with academic background in study of airbnb) offered up a profusive hardshell trickledown credo, and lavished onto the duplex initiative a personal testimony of faith, love, and especially hope. The core of the expressed hope: anyone who buys a new duplex for around $1.5 million will free up other more affordable housing further down the cost ladder. But never mind about what is demolished to build the new. Systematic thinking would recognize that this fervor encompasses the general economics of neoliberal trickledown. But no question about that was put to the speaker.

 
A Few Devilish Details

In a nutshell. The application of duplex potential to existing RS zoning, as presently formulated, seems fated to languish with little uptake. What canny developer would rush to replace RS with duplex at FSR 0.7 [3] when they can instead pillage so much present (and near-term-future) RT zoning for

        7% MORE FSR?

That is 0.75 instead of 0.7. This differential looks like a sneaky way to appease pressures for increased density on paper, yet to maintain west-side privilege on the ground. Meanwhile naive supplyists subside into reveries of recent conquest.

Nailing down the specifics of the zoning details is mind-numbing and time-consuming work. First note that the RT zoning currently set at FSR 0.75 encompasses RT-5, RT-8, RT-9, and RT-11 [4]. Item 6 of the 18 September 2018 public hearing [5] — deferred into the indefinite future during the public hearing on the
RS-to-duplex Item 5 — would have upped to 0.75 the FSR in Kitsilano’s RT-7 and Cedar Cottage’s RT-10.

 
Heaping Density onto Existing Density

The net effect of the RS-to-duplex public hearing is to incentivize builders who operate under the new duplex zoning to zero in on the already denser RT zones.

 

 
     https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Zoning-Map-Vancouver.pdf

 
On the 21 July 2016 zoning map displayed above (the seriously out-of-date version currently provided by City of Vancouver), RT zoning is the yellow sectors that collar the downtown core, stretch along Kingsway, and jump off into Marpole. Vancouver’s last decade of “new community planning” has consistently dumped new density onto existing density, in targeted local areas that already suffer disadvantage. The disparity trend continues under the guise of a specious universality.

 
Equity and “Next Steps”

A true concern for equity would suggest the simple solution of setting FSR at 0.75 for the RS-to-duplex, rather than the 0.7 that was proposed and approved. The problem with that approach is that the 7% increase would generate land lift — a result unwanted by the City — for some sixty thousand properties across Vancouver. That lift would go on top of the land price increase that already seems likely. A priori, how could adding two-for-one opportunity into existing zonings not result in some land value increase?

What is the bottom line of today’s apparent agenda? How to pretend to upzone widely, while preserving traditional east-west disparity. See? That little mass rezoning hardly made any difference at all. You silly fearful people. Now, what’ll we do next?

Sneak preview [3]:

        Floor area allowances combined with parking relaxations could be increased to incentivize
        duplex /triplex/fourplex development while floor area reduced to discourage new single-family
        homes (especially houses built without secondary suites)

 
•   •   •   •   •   •   •
 

[1]
Joanne Lee-Young. Developers, candidates and planners argue over Vancouver’s move to allow duplexes. Vancouver Sun (21 Sept 2018)
https://theprovince.com/business/local-business/developers-candidates-and-planners-argue-over-vancouver-councils-move-to-allow-duplexes/wcm/cd951f3a-48ba-4076-989e-57ad72448767

[2]
East Van Gentrification: Norquay at the Eye of the Hurricane
https://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/gentrification/

[3]
Page 6 of Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law for Most RS Zones to Allow Two-Family Dwellings (Duplexes) to Increase Housing Choice
https://council.vancouver.ca/20180724/documents/p6.pdf

[4]
Zoning schedules (relevant section is 4.7.) are viewable at:
https://vancouver.ca/your-government/zoning-development-bylaw.aspx

[5]
Pages 7-8 and 10-11 of:
Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law for RT-7 and RT-8 Zones (Kitsilano) and RT-10 and RT-10N Zones (Kensington-Cedar Cottage) to Increase Housing Choice
https://council.vancouver.ca/20180724/documents/p3.pdf
 
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

23 September 2018 at 4:20 pm

Posted in East & West, Events, Maps, News

Rezoning of RS for Duplex

with one comment

 
Submission to Mayor and Council Re: Public Hearing 18 September 2018 — Agenda Item 5
REZONING: Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law for Most RS Zones
to Allow Two-Family Dwellings (Duplexes) to Increase Housing Choice

 
Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre in East Vancouver includes 1.5 sq km or 370 acres. Since 2013, 1911 lots in Norquay have been rezoned from RS-1 to new low density housing zones that allow for duplexes, triplexes, rowhouses, stacked townhouses and 4-storey apartments. All of the new zones permit duplexes to be built outright on single lots. During the last 5 years more than 60 duplexes have been built or have started construction. Today Norquay amounts to a City of Vancouver demonstration project.

Most Norquay residents do not object to allowing duplexes in our community. There is a completed duplex on our block. We are fine with this.

However, Norquay’s experience shows that more regulation for outright duplexes is needed. There are three major concerns.

One problem has been very large lock-off units. We have seen several lock-off units that are really one-bedroom suites. Appendix B of today’s Report proposes a maximum size of 350 sq. ft. for lock-off units. We support this change. But two other major problems remain unaddressed.

First, living rooms and bedrooms are usually too small. Living rooms typically accommodate only a couch (and sometimes a chair). Second and third bedrooms often measure less than 60 sq. ft. We saw one unit with 4 bedrooms all measuring 8 x 7. These are not livable family dwellings. At present, no regulations govern room sizes in Vancouver. The 1992 High Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines document is being updated. But these guidelines apply only to apartments, not to lower density housing forms.

The second problem is inadequate attention to external design. The External Design criteria now proposed for all RS zones are essentially the same as what is being applied in Norquay today. These requirements are a good start, and they have resulted in acceptable external design for approximately 80% of our new duplexes. But that is not good enough. Our Norquay neighbourhood deteriorates when 1 out of 5 new duplexes is an eyesore.

Look at these paired pictures of duplexes built outright in Norquay — visual successes and visual failures.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/norquay/duplex-2018.html

Staff have confirmed that building duplexes in RS zones will not provide substantially more housing units or increase affordability. This is all about increasing housing choice. Is this worthwhile goal urgent enough to sideline the two major problems that I have described? No. Before approving any proposal to build duplexes outright in RS zones, Council needs to direct staff to develop and bring forward for approval (1) guidelines for room sizes that apply to low density housing forms, and (2) additional regulations to govern external design.

 
Jeanette and Joseph Jones

17 September 2018
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

17 September 2018 at 9:29 pm

Posted in Photos, Statements

Rezoning of KCC RT-10

leave a comment »

 
Submission to Mayor and Council Re: Public Hearing 18 September 2018 – Agenda Item 6
REZONING: Amendments to the Zoning and Development By-law for RT-7 and RT-8 Zones (Kitsilano)
and RT-10 and RT-10N Zones (Kensington-Cedar Cottage) to Increase Housing Choice

 
The City of Vancouver proposes to rezone the RT-10 District of the Kingsway-Knight Neighbourhood Centre to RT-11. The Report Summary states that this change “will address the concurrent citywide goals of simplifying and consolidating regulations and providing more of the right supply of housing while reflecting different contexts of neighbourhoods.”

The RT-10 zoning schedule requires updating to make it consistent with citywide regulations that have been adopted since 2005. Some RT-11 regulations could be carried back into the RT-10 District. But a wholesale rezoning of the entire RT-10 District to RT-11 fails in “reflecting different contexts of neighbourhoods.”

We live in the small portion of Kensington-Cedar Cottage (KCC) that was rezoned to RT-11 five years ago under planning for the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre. We are part of both Norquay and Kensington-Cedar Cottage. But these two neighbourhoods are quite different. The same rules cannot indiscriminately be applied to both.

Here are three probable outcomes of rezoning the RT-10 District to RT-11.

 
1 — Many more character houses will be demolished.

        RT-11 zoning will imperil the 491 pre-1940 houses — more than 40% of the total — in the
        KCC RT-10 District. The Report states: “The increase to the permitted density for development to
        0.75 FSR may lead to demolition of older homes in favor of a more viable duplex development” (p. 14).
        The large number of character houses in good condition in Kingsway-Knight will face much
        greater risk of being replaced by duplexes. In Norquay’s RT-11 District, most of the older
        houses already have been demolished. Many of the 67 that remain either would not qualify as
        character houses or are in poor condition. Report focus on trade-off ignores this stark asymmetry.

 
2 — The quality of exterior design will deteriorate.

        At present the RT-10 District has extensive Design Guidelines, even for duplexes. Most new
        development there looks attractive. Replacement of those guidelines with the bare-bones
        RT-11 External Design regulations would lead to the outcome already perceptible in Norquay:
        approximately 1 in 5 duplexes built outright is an eyesore.

 
3 — Very little conditional development will occur, and many of the small house/duplex projects
       that are built will have problems.

        RT-11 zoning regulations were tailored to areas of Norquay where most parcels are wider than the usual
        33 feet and/or longer than the usual 122 feet. Only one of the 26 conditional development applications
        in Norquay so far has been for an assembly of lots that measure 33 x 122 or smaller.

        Conditional RT-11 development on a single lot most commonly results in a duplex plus a laneway
        house. This works well on wider lots (side-by-side duplex), or on longer 33 ft lots (front/back duplex).
        In the two instances where duplex-plus-laneway has been built on 33 x 122 parcels, the duplexes are
        side-by-side. Units are less than 12 ft. wide. Rooms are narrow and dark, and hallways consume a
        lot of living area.

        Relatively few parcels in Norquay’s RT-11 District measure 33 x 122 or smaller. This is fortunate,
        and may reflect good planning. Lot size would become a much greater problem factor in the
        KCC RT-10 District, where more than half the lots measure 33 x 122 feet and many of the remainder
        are even smaller.

When we take all of these considerations together, we can see an unhappy future for the RT-10 District if the proposal to rezone wholesale to RT-11 is approved. One. There will be very few conditional applications. Two. Character houses, most of them in good condition, will be demolished at an even faster rate and replaced by duplexes built outright. Three. Too many of these new duplexes on single lots will be eyesores.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Staff needs time to work out which RT-11 regulations are appropriate for the RT-10 District and which are not. Everybody needs to slow down. Much more work is required before Council approves the rezoning of the KCC RT-10 District.

 
Jeanette and Joseph Jones

17 September 2018
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

17 September 2018 at 9:15 pm

Posted in Statements

July 2018 Norquay Listings

 
The following offers to sell properties in Norquay were found on Multiple Listing Service at some point during the month of July 2018. This data is collected as part of Eye on Norquay’s efforts to monitor the affordable new housing types that the Norquay Plan intended to spread across our local area. Other periods, in sequence, can be viewed with a click on the Price Data category link.
 

 
Single Family House


Address                      Ask Price    Lot (ft)     Sq Ft     Year     Zone


2174 E 30th Ave             $1,488,000    50 x 77                         RT-11

2248 E 30th Ave             $1,699,000    2580sf       1946      1912     RM-9A                      

2324 E 30th Ave             $1,888,000    32 x 115     1700      1956     RM-9A

Assembly:
2371 E 30th Ave             $2,498,000    33 x 153     2185      1910     RM-9A         
2377 E 30th Ave             $2,498,000    33 x 153     2162      1954     RM-9A         

Assembly:
2255 E 30th Ave             $2,480,000    45 x 93       2176     2005     RM-9A
4863 Baldwin St             $1,650,999    33 x 93       1856     1980     RM-9A
4873 Baldwin St             $1,650,000    33 x 93       1856     1980     RM-9A
4885 Baldwin St             $1,650,000    33 x 93       1858     1997     RM-9A

2182 E 32nd Ave             $1,590,000    33 x 110     2253      1974     RM-7

2126 E 33rd Ave             $1,399,000    33 x 108     1350      1945     RM-7          

2170 E 33rd Ave             $1,688,000    33 x 108     2153      1986     RM-7                 

2327 E 33rd Ave             $1,649,000    32 x 108     2050      2006     RM-9A

Assembly:                   $2,200,000    32 x 115     2200      1961     RM-7
                            (relisted at $2,100,000)
Three parcels: 2366 E 33rd Ave / 2374 E 33rd Ave / 2380 E 33rd Ave         

Assembly:
2488 E 33rd Ave             $1,999,000    29 x 108     2160      1987     RM-9A
2498 E 33rd Ave             $1,999,000    29 x 108     1987      1987     RM-9A

2239 E 34th Ave             $2,388,000    49 x 115     1600      1945     RM-7    

2281 E 34th Ave             $1,789,000    33 x 115     2200      1912     RM-7       

2375 E 37th Ave             $1,589,000    89 x 44      2520      1955     RM-7

2826 Cheyenne Ave           $1,638,000    39 x 106     1940      1958     RM-7    

2880 Cheyenne Ave           $1,890,000    34 x 110     2416      1986     RM-7

4702 Clarendon St           $1,315,000    33 x 120     1923      1947     RT-11         

5131 Clarendon St           $1,868,000    44 x 89      2152               RM-7

2681 Duke St                $2,398,000    33 x 102     2013      1995     RM-7         

2719 Duke St                $1,688,000    33 x 102     1290      1944     RM-7

5511 Dundee St              $1,658,000    32 x 105     2015      2002     RT-11

4925 Earles St              $2,200,000    33 x 110     2178      1992     RM-7

5615 Earles St              $2,780,000    50 x 117     3534      1993     RT-11     

2840 Euclid St              $2,780,000    50 x 122     2250      1964     RM-7

4736 Gladstone St           $2,688,000    33 x 119     2116      1996     RM-9     

5078 Gladstone St           $1,698,000    33 x 120     2100      1910     RT-11                                    

4550 Gothard St             $1,399,000    33 x 110     1673      1926     RT-11             

2703 Horley St              $1,600,000    39 x 106     2532      1910     RM-7

4965 Killarney St           $1,499,000    33 x 98      1883      1998     RT-11    

5511 Killarney St           $1,598,000    31 x 144     1843      1934     RT-11                          

Assembly:
2847 Kingsway               $2,388,000    38 x 104                        KRPA
2853 Kingsway               $2,388,000    38 x 103                        KRPA
2855 Kingsway               $2,388,000    38 x 103                        KRPA
2871 Kingsway               $2,388,000    38 x 104                        KRPA
2875 Kingsway               $2,388,000    38 x 104                        KRPA
(total frontage potential 231 ft., including exclusive listings)

4935 Moss St                $1,399,900    33 x 94       800      1912     RT-11      

5030 Moss St                $2,250,000    33 x 99      1409      1945     RT-11        

5078 Moss St                $2,250,000    33 x 99      1690      1930     RT-11

5158 Moss St                $2,300,000    33 x 99      1837      2000     RT-11

5168 Moss St                $2,000,000    33 x 99      2200      1965     RM-9A

Assembly:                   $9,188,000    101 x 122                       RM-9A
                            $7,990,000    
4715 Nanaimo St
2366 Galt St
2374 Galt St 

5230 Rhodes St              $3,080,000    32 x 151     1500      1952     RM-9A                 

Assembly:
5043 St Margarets St        $1,599,000    44 x 89      2368      1981     RM-7
5059 St Margarets St        $1,870,000    44 x 89      2318      1995     RM-7          

5135 St Margarets St        $1,890,000    44 x 89      2258      1990     RM-7

Assembly:
5373 Slocan St              $1,998,000    33 x 104     1950      2004     $M-7      
5375 Slocan St              $1,998,000    33 x 104     1950      2004     RM-7

5277 Wales St               $3,300,000    33 x 109     1980      1991     RM-9A          

2775 Ward St                $1,599,999    33 x 102     1700      1932     RM-7                

* KRPA = Kingsway Rezoning Policy Area

 
 
Duplex


Address                      Ask Price     Sq Ft      Year     Zone

2308 E 33rd Ave             $1,388,000      1587      2018     RT-11
       
2627 E 41st Ave             $1,468,000      1967      2015     RT-11

4641B Clarendon St          $1,099,000      1285      2018     RM-7

5474 Dundee St              $1,568,000      2073      2018     RT-11

5218 Gladstone St           $1,498,000      2012      2018     RT-11     
                   
4936 Moss St                $1,089,000      1252      2018     RT-11

4938 Moss St                $1,059,000      1178      2018     RT-11

 
 
Small House

(strata title in RT-11 zone)


Address                      Ask Price     Sq Ft      Year

4650 Baldwin St              $998,000      1197       2018

4652 Baldwin St            $1,430,000      2019       2018

2529 E 38th Ave              $799,000       749       2018

5653 Killarney St          $1,188,000      1226       2017

5655 Killarney St            $968,000      1159       2017

4513 Nanaimo St              $708,000       678       2015

4523 Nanaimo St            $1,258,000      1369       2018       

2680 Norquay St              $699,900       720       Presale

2688 Norquay St              $999,900      1169       Presale               

 
 
Rowhouse / Stacked Townhouse

(strata title in RM-7 zone)


Address                      Ask Price     Sq Ft      Year

2368 E 34th Ave             $1,098,000     1496       2018

5188 Chambers St              $649,000      870       2017

4829 Duchess St             $1,099,000     1833       1995

5008 Highgate St            $1,199,800     1388       2018

5001 St Margarets St        $  958,000     1006       2018

5003 St Margarets St        $  888,000      923       2018

5005 St Margarets St        $  899,900     1006       2018

5011 St Margarets St        $  949,000     1049       2018

5015 St Margarets St        $1,290,000     1610       2018

2632 Ward St (triplex site) $1,800,000                

2717 Ward St                $  879,000     1049       2018

2725 Ward St                $  949,900      997       2018

2727 Ward St                $  849,900     1070       2018

2729 Ward St                $  919,900      956       2018

2743 Ward St                $  949,900      997       2018

 
 
Apartments in RM-9A Zone


Address                      Ask Price     Sq Ft      Year

203—2666 Duke St             $749,900      803        Presale

301-2666 Duke St             $769,900      819        Presale

 
 
Apartment

(strata title in CD-1 zonings)


Address                      Ask Price     Sq Ft      Year


106-2277 E 30th Ave          $468,800        674      1978

111-4893 Clarendon St        $538,888        850      1996

202-4893 Clarendon St        $549,999       1060      1996

206-4893 Clarendon St        $498,000        900      1996
      
203-4815 Eldorado Mews       $528,000        544      2013

1507-4815 Eldorado Mews      $674,900        699      2013

1805-4815 Eldorado Mews      $629,000        549      2013

2305-4815 Eldorado Mews      $584,959        581      2013

209-4818 Eldorado Mews       $549,000        529      2013

212-4818 Eldorado Mews       $569,000        534      2013

326-2239 Kingsway            $725,000        883      2011      

205-2388 Kingsway            $579,000        933      1996
                             $559,000       

E501-2455 Kingsway         $1,119,900       1110      Presale

413-2455 Kingsway            $854,900        830      Presale

906-2455 Kingsway            $885,900        880      Presale

1001-2455 Kingsway           $889,900        834      Presale     

308-2689 Kingsway            $449,000        457      2014

606-2689 Kingsway            $858,000        874      2014

608-2689 Kingsway            $499,000        526      2014

708-4888 Nanaimo St          $498,000        465      2013

PH4-4888 Nanaimo St          $899,000        859      2013

 
 
2220 Kingsway

There were no listings in July 2018 for Kensington Gardens, the Westbank project with
400+ units under construction, with completion projected for 2018


 
 
 
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

2 August 2018 at 11:11 am

Posted in Price Data

Submission to Park Board

leave a comment »

 
Re Draft Capital Plan 2019-2022

20 June 2018

 
We unfortunately were unable to attend the June 12 consultation session, as we were out of town at that point. However, we have looked at the Park Board Draft Capital Plan 2019-2022 and we submit our comment in writing.

We are disappointed to see that the renewal of General Brock Park is not included in the Draft Capital Plan. Under the 2013 Norquay Village Neighbourhood Public Benefits Strategy:

         General Brock Park is considered to be the first priority
         for upgrading in the first 10 years of the Strategy (p. 9)

Time is running out for the City of Vancouver to live up to its commitment.

General Brock Park is the closest neighbourhood park for the largest number of residents in new developments resulting from the 2010 Norquay Plan. Nearby major projects recently completed, under construction, or approved include:
 

Location                Status                   Number of Units

2239 Kingsway           Completed 2011            94 units

2300 Kingsway           Completed 2013           346 units

2220 Kingsway           Completion in 2018       404 units

2395-2443 Kingsway      Approved Sept 2016       126 units

2153-2199 Kingsway      Approved May 2017        101 units

 
In addition, 77 units of family housing in Norquay’s new RT and RM zones as well as many duplexes are in process or already completed in the area. All of this development is within 400 metres of this park.

General Brock Park was established in 1977 and has had only minimal upgrades since that time. It is inadequate to serve the needs of existing and new Norquay residents. It provides a large open green space, some paved (sinking) walkways, and a small playground suitable for preschool children, but very little else.

Increasing densification of the area does not only bring many new residents. It also transfers many activities that have traditionally taken place in backyards to city parks. The new low-rise housing forms (duplex, rowhouse, stacked townhouse, small houses on shared lots) leave very little room for open space on the property. City parks are becoming the “shared backyard” where residents are looking to play, exercise, garden, and socialize. We are looking for picnic tables, exercise and play equipment for all ages, access to nature, and open space where we can run and play.

We recognize that the Norquay Plan and the Public Benefits Strategy provide for the acquisition of four parcels on Wenonah Street in order to incorporate them into the park. The Park Board is to be commended for the work they have done to purchase two of these four properties. However, the remaining two properties may well be unavailable for purchase for many years to come. Renewal of Brock Park cannot be put off until that opportunity occurs. We suggest a modular redesign, which could incorporate the four Wenonah Street properties when the Park Board is able to assemble all of them.

The City of Vancouver has repeatedly assured Norquay residents that development of parks will accompany the development of new housing. The renewal of Brock Park needs to be included in the 2019-2022 Capital Plan.

 
Jeanette and Joseph Jones
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

20 June 2018 at 8:19 pm

Posted in Open Letters