Results of public survey on West End Plan, Nov 2013

(Updated) The West End Community Plan was adopted by City Council on November 20, 2013. Here below is a tally of 182 responses to an online public survey regarding the draft. Seeing this graph, would you say there was strong support for the Plan? Note that the wording of questions also skews options.

One way of reading this is that only 28% of the respondents clearly supported the plan. The remaining 72% said no, not sure, or yes but have problems. So, reader, did the West End support the West End Plan? Read on…

CoV West End Plan final survey Q1 pie, Dec 2013

The complete package for the West End Plan, nearly 200 pages, was made public on October 22, after which six public “learning sessions” were held. A total of about 120 people (reconfirm) participated, from the community of about 45,000. Staff offered the public a chance to provide public input by this survey from October 25 to November 13. A total of 182 questionaires were completed. During the Council meeting, staff did not refer to any negative comments or questions about the draft plan, and staff and council made many statements indicating the belief that there was strong public support for the draft Plan. You, the reader, are welcome to read the staff summary (available publicly online via City website), and the raw comments from the survey (obtained after repeated requests to staff).

Draft West End Community Plan Online Questionnaire – Deadline for completion was November 13, 2013.

Staff summary for Vancouver City Council, November 20, 2013. Download in PDF: CoV West End Plan, Draft Plan online Survey end 13-Nov-2013, Council summary

Full written responses to online survey. Download in PDF: West End Community Plan – Draft Plan Questionnaire – All Written Respons…

Draft Plan Questionnaire – All Written Responses

 

1.  Do you feel that the Draft West End Community Plan meets the needs of your community today and into the future?

 

Yes, except

More details for older adults

will be good to see the details of priorities as they come forth once plan is approved,

sharing with west end residents and keeping us involved/informed

affordable housing

Affordablity? (seniors, families with children) businesses are leaving Denman street, I’m

concerned about taxes etc.

all the rainbow colors.

Barclay Heritage Square park needs renewal

development of Area F in the Burrard corridor should not exceed 300ft

First, on balance I support and like the plan. Second, I was very impressed by the quality of

the process, and when I attended the public meeting chaired by the West End planner I could plainly see that the City’s intentions for the West End are very worthy and have the best interests of our community’s future at heart.

Higher building heights should be allowed for future growth

I find it odd that Denman is not recognized as a main arterial route to the Lions Gate

Bridge.  It is always backed up especially at rush hour and on sunny days.

I have issues with the density planned for the corridors

I support LGBT, but I think the plan is going a little over the top. The bright colours clash

and don’t look sophisticated at all.

I wish the income levels for definition of social housing were lower

I wish there was more in the plan to address amenities for 55+ demographic.

I’m worried about making sidewalks larger on the corridors. Will this affect those of us

driving into the west end? Getting in and out of the neighborhood by car is already a nightmare!

important parameters vague, process not open enough

It isn’t clear enough about heights and FSR policies

it seems to want to spread resources too thin to satisfy too many goals without excelling at

any.  It provides some thematic guidance, but I disagree with some elements of transportation plan, lighting, and distribution of hi-rise development, lane way development, and commercial concentrations.

it’s difficult for the lay person to understand what the effect of the zoning density and

bonuses will be

It’s hard to predict far into the future

Library more important than upgrading fire station

More green space

more office in mixed use

more protected housing for seniors. Also tearing down protected housing as if it didn’t

matter that it’s heritage property. One gone whats to say you won’t tear down others.

 

 

More work needed on funding strategy for Cultural Facilities and public art and land

acquisition for Neighbourhood Parks within the residential Neighbourhoods

need more market rental housing

need to address traffic on Denman

Not sure enough new commercial spaces.

rainbows and disco balls are an eyesore. it looks juvenille.

Street tree placement – I would like to see the (big) old trees desiccate “heritage” and stay

protected. Otherwise I am really thrilled with the plan so far!

The early child are still sparse

The policies limiting heights and FSR aren’t clear and aren’t specific enough

There is a lot of generalization within the document.  I do think the city has covered a lot

of content within the document, however, when speaking about the West End in a futuristic sense, I don’t see originality. It’s very basic development for the area, improvements due to age.  In 40 years do you really think this is going to be a plan that will work? In a transportation sense I think the city should look at PRTs in the West End.  They are smaller, could potentially travel down laneways and would help alleviate more traffic congestion.

There is no statement stating that spot rezoning such as STIR 22 storeys at 1401 Comox

/1061 Broughton won’t be allowed so the whole plan is just window dressing. There is no reason to have a great plan if planning or council will not follow it. It undermines our buy-in for any plan.

there is too much city involvement in social housing

through traffic along Pacific-Beach Avenue-Denman, bikes along English Bay sidewalk.

transit inside the neighbourhood rather than just the three streets of Davie, Denman &

Robson.

underground train needs to come into the west end

unrealistic parking/traffic approach

Upgrades to library need to be done faster

When commerical buildings are too dense. ie. Denman, the developer should have limited

time for rebuilding

Zoning Bylaw public meeting yet to be set for early 2014, & building heights a concern in

density and some laneway housing heights.  Prefer that no new developments proposed for lower Robson/ Denman & Georgia – keep the remaining view corridor in lower WE near

park, and limit new proposed heights to eastward on Georgia & Robson.

No, because

• Potential for citywide or regional policies to override what is written in the Plan.

A big dump of density without clear enough guidelines to protect livability, character,

heritage, affordability, and quality of neighbourhood

affordable housing is never affordable by the time it is built

demolition of existing buildings was not on the list for public input this was obvciously

avoided as the public would have not approved Where is the negative impact study When will the public be given the TRUTH there are common snese imporvement that would be of

minimal investment or our Tax dollars. No one is being asked the real questions Do you

approve of the major demplition and construction that will take palce in your

neighborhood. Do you want tall skycrapers in your area. There need to be more public input for this to be a democaratic fair honest and transparent process Ther is nothing green and

 

 

ecolgically correct about new construction The publid have spoken they want peace and

quiet more than anything  No one was asked about infill housing in there alley ways. This will be a violent misues of our funds adn will violate the trust what littel we have left in this Government there is nothign Green about new construction you are misleading to say the least

densities proposed for lower davie and lower robson are way too high.  More Yaletown

highrises will not make the West End a better place.

density and green space

filled with buzzwords but no real thought. Laneways 2.0 has put dumpsters where? Parking

removed for more housing which should require even more spots to park, not less.

has high density already

I can’t trust Vision when they say there will be affordable housing.  Especially when they

mention along West Georgia Street and the same day this plan was released I received an email with the price list for Trump Tower starting at 700k for a 1 bedroom.  Get real.

I did not realize that there are still highrises planned in the vicinity of English Bay

I don’t see an understanding of what makes the westend so livable in your plan

I have not seen evidence to address the proposed increased population density.  There is no

clear evidence in the Plan which demonstrates how the increase numbers will access transportation, education, etc.

I need more space and time to provide  my comments

I’d like to see more co-occupational and multi-organizational use of space to peer support

programs.

Impacts of Lions Gate Bridge to bridge traffic is omitted – need to policy to reduce volumes

and speeds on Beach & Denman. This impacts both walking and public transit.

increased density unlivable

insufficient time for review

it allows for dozens of the highrise buildings that residents specifically said they do not

want more of

it does not address the concerns I have about heights and densities for new buildings

it focuses too much on increasing density.

It id too vague. Buildingsd too high. Buildings too high.

It is based on input from a self-selecting group of people who have time to do this and do

not represent the vast majority of residents

it is not not broadly supported on the local level and that is a basic requirement for a

successful community plan.

It is vague and open to different interpretations

it leaves too much uncertain and it’s unrealistic to think a plan has a 30 year outlook

it only pays lip service to what the community wants

it penalizes motor vehicles

it proposes a large increase in density

it was not a collaborative plan that gave residents a sense of ownership in the decision-

making process

it’s too much, too fast, too little specifics…with huge financial and social costs and

implications

 

 

lack of public consultation

many high-rises and disappointed that the area Thurlow to Burrard is designated as “

corridor” no neighbourhood suggestion and many high-rises 40 + stories.

money should just be spent on infrastructure maintenancte not on more developmen

more highrise buildings are not the answer to the West End’s needs, and they represent a

prospective blight on its already dense landscape

No affordability! No heritage protection

no more high rises

no specific commitments

no traffic calming measures included, green spaces (more needed).

No, because it will so be only moneied people tha can oive.

not enough detailed info

not enough renewal incentive for land owners

not enough time or engagement.

of the loss of affordable housing

our housing co-op will have a challenge to remain and expand on our site (Manhattan

Housing Co-op at 784 Thurlow St.) because residential will no longer be permitted in

Downtown Area ‘E’)

Proposed developments do not add any community or infrastructure elements to support

10000 people

public transit too low on priority vs cycling, laneways bad idea, many more

seniors statistical data isn’t ‘parsed’ to reflect the exceptional circumstances of people in

the final lap of their lives as compared with younger age demographics.

The allowable height of the towers along Davie, Thurlow and Robson will overshadow the

character of the whole neighbourhood. It also encourages more chain stores to be set up along Davie – especially the lower part where it is now entirely residential. There is also no

plan for increasing public programs or addressing how the increased density will effect the

current library, aquatic centre, community centre, etc., or parking requirements.

the city isn’t listening to residents and what they want for the West End

the complete 200-page package was just released Nov 6 and there is no adequate time to

review it all

The plan as written does not provide certainty to guide new development.  The meets the

needs of developers – not the community.

the plan encourages more growth.

the process has abused the community

The proposed height of buildings on Lower Robson and the lower Georgia Corridor is not in

keeping with the “dome” concept overview of the city and will also serve to turn the

“corridor” into a dark hallway.

The quantity of towers will change the make up of the west end

The suggested changes are very minimal in nature and are not allowing for public space to

thrive and communities to form distinctive identities

the West End Community needs more time on their draft plan

There is already enough congestion on Alberni between Thurlow and Burrard with these

annoying restaurants and their even more annoying patrons. I live here on this block…how

 

 

does a christmas market benefit my right to a peaceful habitation?

There is no mention of wildlife or pets in the plan.

There is no plan to expand facilities dedicated to seniors – a place to gather informally,

have inexpensive meals together and access programs and services

There is plenty of density in the West End, what about our quality of life?

timelines are too narrow – I dont believe proper consultation has taken place, it appears

the city is ramming through a vague plan giving them the ability to fill in the gaps at their leisure with no public input

Too much  devt, not enough consultation

too much crowding of the area before proper facilities are put in place to handle the influx

, i.e. hospitals, community centre etc

Unless other types of building forms can be found to offer social housing in various locations

throughout the West End, the current spacious feeling along the Corridors will be lost. Individuals on low incomes should not be “warehoused” in a wall of towers along Davie and

Robson. Sunset Towers works because it is not located on a busy street and there is a great

deal of space around the building. As someone with psychiatric work experience, individuals with a variety of special needs also require housing options like everyone else. In addition,

to make certain that laneway infill will not create privacy and shadow impacts, it will be

necessary to specify strict building conditions (particularly height) for each potential West End laneway site.  To maintain the sense of space in the public realm of a densely populated neighbourhood, existing tower separation guidelines along all parts of Davie Street should be maintained and not reduced. Also, the Plan should specify in detail how sufficient DCL and CAC amounts will be generated to pay for amenity improvements as the West End’s population increases over the next 30 years. In the area between Burrard and

Thurlow Streets, from Georgia to Pacific, the maximum densities of all new buildings should

be specified, with clear direction for height and densities of all new West End buildings specified as requested by the Vancouver City Planning Commission. For rezonings in the neigbourhoods for 100 %   social housing, the Plan should specify the maximum building heights and densities. For these types of neighbourhood rezonings, the Plan should also specify how these sites might be redeveloped, including how existing residents (for example, in the 1400 and 1500 blocks of Comox Street) might be accommodated if they want to continue living in the West End. The houses identified as having heritage value by Heritage Vancouver that are at the north west corner of Davie and Jervis, should be specified in the Plan for protection as complete buildings, and not replaced by towers. Turning Davie Village into an extended entertainment district by connecting this part of Davie  Street and Robson Street to the Granville entertainment district through the “West Loop” could introduce negative impacts such as more physical violence related to alcohol abuse and drug dealing. To allow residents to identify potential sites for laneway infill, the Plan should provide a detailed rationale for building this type of housing on only sites with existing buildings that were constructed before 1975. The Plan also has to give more detailed information about how parking requirements for laneway infill projects given the proposed removal of surface and laneway parking. The Plan also has to provide more detail about how issues related to privacy, building appearance in relation to existing neighbourhood character, and shadow impacts.will be addressed with regard to laneway infill projects.

We don’t actually know what the needs of the community will be in 30 years.

You are putting too much burden on the West End which has been a very densified

community for decades.

 

2.  What elements of the plan are you excited about? What are you looking forward to seeing happen on the ground?

 

none

– Certainty with respect to the types of housing development permitted in the various

neighbourhoods will provide new housing options and different types of housing, which should allow people to stay in the neighbourhood over longer periods of time, and will help

rejuvenate areas that are getting a bit shabby.

– Laneways 2.0 is very exciting – Mole Hill is one of the coolest neighbourhoods in the City, and I would love variations (market and non-market) of it elsewhere.

– Very excited about seeing the public realm in the “villages”, along with the Alberni corridor, strengthened and improved.

– green and leafy laneways

– improved commercial especially Denman

– improved pedestrian crossing (some already in place)

– lighting on seawall

– better pedestrian allies to the beach (safer)

– library improvements

– Infill housing

– The recognition of the Davie community as a LGBT area

– Keeping green space

– mini parks

– laneway housing to liven up these areas and improve and increase walkability

– street improvements – however please invite artists to be part of this so we aren’t just installing (sic) generic seating (eg. like on Comox St). We have an opportunity to create

beauty, fun, and engagement here.

– laneway improvement

– walkability

– renewed WECC, Library, King George Highschool

– emphasis on livibility and social benefits

– Need to have policy to reallocate on-street parking. Eliminate minimum parking standards

– Beach Ave and Denman St need to be reduced to two traffic lanes

– the ideas of neighbourhoods Davie; Denman; Robson

– more affordable housing and more housing for families

– green “set back” areas

– consideration housing needs for seniors

“villages” improvements

1)  Community Centre/Library upgrades, perhaps an additional floor on top if this is

possible to make it structurally sound to accommodate more space, in the same location.

Larger and expanded Qmmunity space in central location, would be welcomed including all age groups.  2) Improvement of the ‘villages’, streetscape and greenspaces, rejuvination and update of shabby looking storefronts & keeping our streets & laneways cleaner with more accommodating garbage bins on street corners/bus shelters.  3) Seawall lighting in English Bay for safety, and patrols in area. Rainwater gardens in laneways improve appearance of neighborhood as well as assist the stormdrains taking in the overflow – a great idea and look good according to the plan drawings, accommodating laneway housing.  Would be nice to see additional ‘Co-op rental’ units, in neighborhood, similar to one by Bayshore, included in the ‘social housing expansion’ mentioned in the plan.  The Saturday presentation by Holli Sovdi & staff, was excellent and the most informative yet, and hope residents can stay

 

 

involved once plan is approved, for input, preferably via ‘mailouts’ to rental buildings where

Managers can post the info in lobby or public areas, so West End residents stay informed.

1. Recognition that buildings along commercial streets (Davie, Robson) need to be low rise

buildings to maximize sunlight on sidewalks.

2. Recognition that glass curtain walls do not agree with the West End’s character.

3. Regeneration of the laneways.

4. It is very positive that the City is planning to expand the food scraps recycling service to multi-unit residential buildings.

1. The status quo in the west end

2. The development of lower Robson and lower Davie

3. The corridors at Burrard and West Geaorgia

4. The development of laneways (but not excited about the empahasis on social housing)

5. The greening of the city and development of recreational and park spaces

1. The west loop bus service idea

2. Idea to redevelop VPL and King George Highschool – Great opportunity!

3. Laneway infill

4. Intent to increase rental and social housing.

A longer, more comprehensive community consultation; less spin

A new space for QMUNITY that highlight’s its importance as a community resource.

Active laneways/housing.

More patios/outdoor west end.

Addressing need for workforce housing for service industry employees

All of it, now its time to deliver. Affordable housing for families is severely lacking

as little as possible – the west end is already a very densified area. There is plenty of lower

density area elsewhere in the city to develop.

Better use of lanes with more lighting, gardens, etc.  heritage walk, including the

opportunity to learn more about the Salish people. Building a new school/new childcare facilities; a focus on reducing care ownership; including even more green spaces. More

housing and help for the homeless; development of Qmunity; family places; help for

vulnerable people; celebration of diversity, be it age, race, sexual orientation, etc.

change…for all change is good

Cleaner sidewalks, Renewed store fronts..merchants should be required to paint and clean

their awnings etc on a regular basis. More seating and rest areas along Robson Denman and

Davie. More trees. Less homeless people begging for money.

Clean-up of commercial frontages

Comprehending the community, people and its culture. It is an action to renew the long

range vision of the community.

On the ground we need clean air, sun light, green and safe side walk and efficient functional transportation. And there must be preserved attractive  views to the surrounding nature and public open space in all directions.

Creating better walking, and biking space. The major benefit of the West End is not having

a car. I definitely think parking rates need to increase. There really is no reason to have a car, and if you chose to, pay the price. I was surprised to hear that on-site parking is underutilized. More cars in the garages and off the streets

Curtailment of spot rezoning except 100% social housing.

Development of Alberni retail district.  Library desperately needs an upgrade

development strategy

 

 

Ending homelessness in the city would definitely imrpove the westend. I like the laneways

2.0. Brighter, cleaner laneways would make it more pleasant for pedestrians and for those with lane facing suites. The emphasis on walking in the plan is great. Rooftop patios would also be great. It would also be nice to see Alberni perk up a bit. I like the emphasis on green space.

Enhancement of the villages with public realm improvements. Laneway 2.0 is a great

opportunity to infill with all sorts of interesting housing.

Enhancing Alberni Street retail/service/residential

Enhancing public spaces

enhncing arts and cultural venues for residents.

Excited about more market housing on Burrard and Robson area.

Excited by all the buzzwords.  Cannot wait until the discoball getsinstalled in Davie Village.

Stereotype much?

Expanding public spaces on Davie, Denman. Making better use of lane ways for housing and

walking.

Focus on business development in the villages, emphasis on social and rental housing and

opportunity for public realm improvements made possible through CAC’s and DCL’s from corridor development.

Generally like the plan, green space is needed but difficult to expand.I work with Digs

Vancouver and garden at the building where I live. I think more people brings more services and more infrastructure. I would like to see more 3 story walk-ups replaced w/6 story jobs w/character.

Having a plan is positive and having all the facts available is helpful.

Helping the ‘culture’ of the West End by limiting heights low in the main residental areas.

Widening of sidewalks on commerical streets and by larging capacity of ‘amenities’ eg.

Childcare.

I agree some of the older buildings need to be revitalized.  Also, lots of people in the West

End still drive so let’s not make it all side walks and bike lanes please.  It does rain here 10 months of the year so let’s be realistic about that.

I am excited about seeing if council and/or planning will follow a plan so we feel there is a

point in all this.  I like the commercial corridor upgrades, heritage retention and 6 storey

RM retention.

I am excited about the acknowledgment of the Davie Village as unique heritage for the

LGBT community. Also that there is some talk for affordable housing.

I am glad that the heritage, leafy streets and parks are recognized for their importance. I

am glad views and building heights are also recognized as vital to the character of the area.

I am not excited about seeing the plan implementated.  I see the construction of dozens of

towers – exactly the type of construction residents clearly stated they did not want to see. There are other ways to add density, but for whatever reason, these were not explored.

I am not excited but dismayed by the continuing waste of taxpayers money on eg. cold

metal chairs that no one sits on or laneway homes or bikelanes that add to traffic risk. and the lies of developers to include senior and low cost housing. etc.

I am not excited

I do not support high density in the West End

 

No More High Rises

they cause dark streets, wind tunnels and we lose our beautiful views. Why do you want to do that.  STOP before it is too late

 

 

I am not excited, because it’s clear that there is a very considerable lack of local consensus.

What I am looking forward to seeing is meaningful public consultation and appropriate respect for perspectives that are not aligned with the City’s point of view!

I am not excited. I would prefer to see a period of stability

I am pleased to see focus on community integrity, height limits, walkability and mature

tree canopies.

I don’t approve of the infill housing.

I don’t feel excited about any of it at this time

I feel that the draft plan provides a good framework for the ongoing development of a

neighbourhood that I will feel comfortable living in.  I made the choice to move to the West End over 25 years ago because I wanted to live in a safe neighborhood where it was possible for me to live without a car and to be able to carry out my daily activities- – work, shop, access medical care, visit the community centre and library, go for a swim, walk in nature, visit with friends, go out for a meal, attend the film festival or the opera – by walking or using transit.  I believe the draft plan will continue to support this type of desirable neighbourhood.

I think the plan is a good compromise that supports redevelopment within current zoning in the bulk of the West End and also allows increased density for social housing within certain areas.

I am very excited about the possibility of more attractive lanes that support family housing

and green, walk ways………..I just hope it happens before I am too old to enjoy them!

I am happy to see the focus on social housing and rental housing for families with children. I am also happy to see the plan includes the redevelopment of the Community Centre, Library and Aquatics centre.  I am also happy that the plan recognizes the importance of retaining and enhancing the “leafy, green” feel of the West End and provides for additional green areas, trees, parklets etc.

I want to live in a diverse community where I have people of all ages, sexual orientations and income levels as my neighbours and I feel the plan supports this type of community.

I would rather see density increases across the existing neighbourhoods of metro Vancouver rather than continue the outward sprawl that encourages and requires the increased use of

automobiles.  I believe that planned density can be a very desirable thing that supports lively, vital neighbourhoods where services such as transit, recreation and infrastructure

can be provided in a much more efficient and cost effective way.

I haven’t seen it

I hope to see more attention devoted to food security in the West End: there is a need for

more opportunities for residents to grow food. More spaces are needed for gardens. More buildings have to plan to have gardens. There is a lot of wasted rooftop space that could be

used for gardens if the CoV would mandate or provide incentives for property managers to

create them.

I like the community gardens & the boulevard gardens.

I like the idea of ceremonial corridors which recognize the natural traffic flow and allow

increased density along these streets.

I like the idea of open air markets. I would like to see all people welcomed to the area, not

only catering to the gay community.

I like the public realm parks inthe different villages and the height of buildings inthe

georgia & burrard corridors. I would like to see a taller landmark tower at georgia &

burrard.  Such as max height of 750-800 ft will a see thru lattice work spire reaching up to

900   ft. A monument to Vancitys greatness.

 

 

I like trying to preserve the heritage buildings.  I look forward to seeing the addition of

laneway housing and generally cleaning up the third-world apperance of the laneways.  I am excited about the zoning on Burrard, Georgia, and Alberni Streets allowing for a dramatic building height increase.

I live on Beach and Broughton so there isn’t a whole lot of development happening in that

area. Infrastructure is needing a bit of a facelift in some areas, however, the key is to NOT DISPLACE people.  I have a few friends that are being renovicted from their apartments in the west end and I would really hate to see this happen to people.  When people have put down roots for an extended period of time, forcing them out of their homes isn’t something the city should do.  I’m in my early-30s and plan on staying in the West End with my roots firmly planted. Affordability is something that will keep the community together.

I love markets and the openness of it all.

I need more space and time to provide  my comments.

I really like the closure of Bute @ Davie.

If council are serious about increasing size of rental pool and increase in size of units (more

2, 3 bedroom suites) and also serious about affordability this is good.

If I were a developer, I’d be excited about new profits.  As a citizen, I worry about the

erosion of livability of this historic neighbourhood.

Im excited to seeing the ‘commercial first’ plans around retail and liveliness on the main

streets. I live on Davie and it is always bustling, it’d be great if other areas were similar ~

I’m not excited as we haven’t had enough engagement. Have meeting with only 25 people is

ridiculous.

I’m pleased that the building of new highrises will be confined to the two corridors

described so that the nature of the existing west end neighbourhoods is not destroyed.I was concerned we would be filled in like Yaletown. More pedestrian areas, crosswalks and trees

is great. Doing some building in the lanes sounds like a great idea. Hope bus rest stop CAN

be relocated. Bit of an eyesore all those buses parked up together at Denman and Davie.

improved commercial – esp Denman

better and safer access to beaches

improved commercial districts

greening of lanes

improved (safer) access to beach for pedestrians and lighting more focus on arts and culture

bigger and better library and community centre

Public Benefits strategy generally

Improved community centre, improved library, Davie/Denman/Robson being closed to thru

traffic.

Improvements in walking

Gradual infill while maintaining green space and tree canopy

Improvements to the West End Community Centre and library are much needed.  I hope the

plan will allow for these changes sooner rather than later.

Improvements/development of the WECC, the VPL and King George High School … the

whole complex to maximise land use of that site while increasing amenities for the community.  Give the high school its own library space. Large playing field is underutilized

so space may be put to more uses while maintaining green space.

Increase density in the west end with infill housing and increased building heights.

Maintaining and creating distinct neighborhoods within the west end

Increased attention to parks and public spaces. C

 

 

-increased lighting throughout.

-widen sidwalks especially Denman

-increased greenspace

-laneway housing

-increased community spaces i.e. library

Infill and greening of laneways and alleys. Patios/widening of sidewalks.

infill housing

housing for homeless parklets

It would have been helpful to attach the plan to this survey so I could read it!

 

It’s incredulous that a questionairre of this nature would be sent to residents with the assumption that people are familiar with the details of the topic, and then ask pointed and direct questions about responses to it.

 

So.  Without having seen the plan or knowing anything about it, here are some of my thoughts:

!.  Increasing population density without considering the stresses of additional traffic and

infrastructure use will diminish the quality of life for all residents of the West End.

 

2.  The proximity of the West End to Stanley Park and English Bay may place those unique features of our city under undue stress with increased population density.

 

3.  The West End was the most densely populated neighbourhood in Canada prior to the development of Yaletown.  Yaletown was developed with high density in mind, and has infrastructure, facilities and traffic flow factored into the community plan.  The West End is an established neighbourhood that is constrained by traffic flow and infrastructure features that were never intended to support the current level of density, never mind increasing density from current levels.

 

Very disappointing:(

I’ve never seen the plan.

Keeping zoning laws in place created green spaces, creating lower cost housing for families,

laneway housing, lighting and expanding community facilities.

know nothing about it

Laneway housing! Preservation of heritage.

Laneway housing. Pedestrian and cycling improvements.

-laneway infill and beautification

-concentration of towers in areas where they make sense

-the explicit definition of the three “villages”

-discussion of replacing King George High School and upgrading the WECC and library

-“squeezing” the traffic on Denman

-explicit identification of heritage buildings and seeing them as part of the bigger picture

Laneways gardens and planning for green spaces in new developments

Like greenspace, walking and biking(though the biking thing is getting way out of balance)

Livelier streets: the part about residential infill in laneways will help increasing the housing

supply and will prevent more families to be priced-out of the Downtown peninsula. The improvement of Alberni Street will also create friendlier pedestrian environment.

 

 

live-work-shop-entertainment-play : less commute

Love the color and liveliness of this are. Very excited that the picnic tables on Bute may

become permanent. Although better lighting would enhance it greatly.

Medical access, meeting places for gathering,

Mid-block crossings, improved community centre, library and aquatic centre, naming of

mini parks, dedication to protecting heritage and respect for architectural diversity in the

West End.  Limits in the heights and FSR for buildings not on main arteries.

more affordable housing in plan,we could still use much more,and also like the proposals

for laneway development

More commercial space on the corridors but it needs to be affordable so we can have family

run small business and not all huge chain stores

More green space, including parks and parklets, demapped streets (Robson!), and narrowed

streets are needed. Actually I see none of this in this plan.

More new rental buildings, let get moving!!!

more taller buildings on Denman Robson and Davie

More walkable spaces. Ease of bikes entering and leaving West End. Controlling cars

somewhat within the area due to previous sentences. Avoiding too many highrise buildings, keeping to reasonable heights.

most excited about the suggested improvements in ‘public realm’ areas, especially Cardero

heritage stroll & in Davie Village … I *totally* support the plan — great job in putting that together!!!!

Most interesting to me are the connections between areas across the West end with

greenways.  Plazas are a good idea, but they need to be bigger–not just reclaimed road at the end of a block.  I an excited at the possibility of bulldozing the end of a block, spilling onto the street and installing significant plaza space. I think this plan as presented is too watered down, but it suggests what might be possible.

Mostly excited about the possibility for housing exclusively for families. We’re expecting a

baby and have lived in the area for 9 years. Rental costs and our growing needs are pushing us out of our home. To see the city allocate affordable rentals for young families would be

incredible.

Naming of miniparks, updates to Community Centre, Library and Aquatic Centre. Additions

of mid-block crosswalks and the removal of the slip lane at Beach and Jervis.

neigbourhood high streets

New building for QMUNITY!!

nil

No I am not excited about your plan as I studied it anxiety increased I don’t share your

vision of very hi density hi-rises and home ownership opportunities displacing affordable rental units.  Your idea of lane way housing & development creating instant slums of the current affordable low-rise studio & bachelor units. Those that will remain will become dark, airless, hovels. Any sunlight left will have to be shutout anyway in order to achieve a bit of privacy from the busy street scene you depict in the alleys or laneways.

None of it!  I feel like too much of the city’s plan is being shoved down people’s throats!

None of the plan looks “exciting” it just looks like a way to encourage more high-rise

buildings.

Also, I did notice that the box for this question is ten times larger than the answer box for the previous question about what I didn’t like about the plan — talk about encouraging bias

in your results.

 

 

None.  I do not feel there is sufficient time for West End residents to absorb the Plan as it

has now been made publicly available to review, and the time given for that review is FAR shorter than that given to other neighborhoods for review of Plans for those other neighborhoods.  The West End, vital as it is to the City of Vancouver and its reputation, deserves sufficient time to review what would SUBSTANTIALLY alter its existing character and flavour.  We are NOT being given this (correct) opportunity to provide feedback or have a say in whether it goes ahead in the present form or not.  We deserve that.

None. There has been a complete lack of adequate time for the public to review the 30-

year plan.

Not much!

Not much.  There are a few good ideas, but far too much ideology.  The West End is great

and only needs tweaking, the language in the plan makes me worried about the City’s true agenda.

not very  excited about any od the plan

Nothing

Nothing to be excited about, don’t expect any big changes

One thing to look at is keeping our Davie and Burrard community gardens. It’s so well used

by the community I would hate to see an ugly highrise condo built there.

Preservation of green and park space.

Preservation of the present unique character of the area. I want to see zoning regulations

that ensure that development will happen as indicated in the Plan

Protection of the neighbourhood areas if possible.

public gathering places in intersections and upgrading business facades

Public walkway(s) in Davie Village Area.

rain gardens to filter stormwater; repurpose of some laneways as long as it doesn’t mess up

residents who own cars and still allows garbage trucks to get through.

Rain Gardens, Food Scraps pick-up, water and sewer, Deconstruction. I hope rain gardens

are well planned starting in 2014.  I’m guessing these are included in the gardens to me managed by volunteers.  Provide good training and leadership if this is the case. It makes

sense to rebuilt seawall as 30 year plan. I’m curious about expansion of Morton Park.  I

hope that the parks are connected across the bottom of Davie but that would not meet geometry goal.

Real public consultation before you destroy my neighbourhood and sell it out to the

developers.

Seems to build on strengths of the West End while I allowing for increased density.  Do not

agree with emphasis on gay village along Parts of Davie. Why celebrate an exclusive lifestyle.

Strengthening of the “robson village” thought this has not been pushed far enough. There

has not been discussion about lane closures or options for greater expansion of public realm

Suggested calming of  some of the  busy areas in the neighbourhoods but  this seems a

contradiction with  the suggested increased of population  and opening of zoning to high rise areas i.e. Davie St ( lower and higher)  . This would be a great move forward but does

not seem feasible with present plan .

The corridors of Robson, Burrard and Davie are well thought out (except the fact highrises

in the lower Davie area are allowed). New community centre is great; more green spaces with seating, parks, community gardens

The focus on the priorities presented by Planners, in the WE Plan – 1) rejuvinated/enhanced

 

 

Community Centre & Library& development of an inclusive all-age QMunity Centre  (for WE

Comm. Centre – perhaps adding an additional floor on roof to retain in same location); 2) Revitalized and needed sprucing up & vibrancy of ‘villages’ with greenspace,trees, rain/groundwater catchment areas, added low lighting in areas for safety, benches and beautification with widening and repair of sidewalks in villages & include more trash cans on every corner.  Many comments/complains re: loud siren-through fare on Denman (reroute overly loud emergency siren vehicles off Denman?), to make this a more livable and community oriented safe, resident/restaurant/shopping stroll – the planners drawing

concepts encouraging. City could encourage businesses/restaurants on neighborhood streets to take pride in curb appeal of their premises, re: cleanliness, paint, clean windows, new awnings, plants, etc. 3) Seawall lighting (not to bright) & added benches on hillside, for safety, walks.

The ongoing work and progress on the area’s public realm, especially with regard to

improving plazas and creating more opportunities for “gathering spaces”.

The pedestrian enhancements. I like the potential for a dock at Bidwell/Beach.

The pictures are very impressive.  But I feel this process has ignored many, many, many

community requests to slow down and provide acknowledgement of the negative reaction to cramming more and more high rises in this area.

The possibility of development in the West End being managed in a way that respects the

neighbourhood

The POSSIBILITY of development in the West End being managed in a way that respects the

neighbourhood. But due to lack of adequate detail, height/density limits, vagueness of the public benefits strategy, and so on, the Plan should not yet be adopted.

The renewal of aging park board fitness/recreation facilities.

The retention of heritage.

the sidewalks and cycling paths

The slight possibility that the city won’t  continue to steamroll over what neighbourhood

members want

There is nothing that excites me about this plan.

There is nothing that exciting about the plan except a few new benches

There is too much emphasis on increasing density in the most dense area of the city.

I’m not excited at all.

This is a disappointingly leading question.  The potential upgrades to to the west end

community facilities but unfortunately these are not scheduled to occur for the next 10+

years

This should have been an opportunity for the local community to have a real say in its

future. Instead, a forced outcome has been sprung with a timeline that says genuine comment is not wanted.

Under six storeys.

Until the information gaps identified in question 1 are “filled in” with considerably more

detail, the only part of the Plan that I support is the strengthening Alberni Street, between

Burrard and Bute Streets, as an emerging retail district. IF the Alberni Retail District can be strengthened as a mixed-use Street with a focus on vibrancy and activity, why should this approach not be taken along the upper part of Davie Street?

Updated parks and increased walkability.

updating the facades of robson, denman and davie…the facades are very “tired”…improved

services for seniors is definitely going to be needed, and improved food services for the

 

 

elderly, updating joe fortes library is definitely needed, english bay is beautiful as it

is…but could use some improvements, planting trees now is important along the streets as the trees are getting old, and look like they may come down during a storm.

UPGRADE library NOW!!

 

Sell lend to developer, put covenant on for City to use bottom couple of floors for library/community centre, have several floors of rental housing and this can be done quickly at little cost to rate payers!

 

Pls. do not put 25 million aside for a largely useless fire hall renovation and only 12 million aside for our library!

Why such a big box for the elements I am excited about but a tiny box for concerns. Does

this signify that the decisions have already been made and this is just a tick the box exercise?

 

The potential upgrades to the aquatic centre, library and community centre but this is not forecast to take place for ten plus years

widening of sidewalks

will comment on this later

 

 

3.  What concern(s) do you have and why? How would you address your concern(s)

through the plan?

 

Like the plan, except

Closing off section of Beech Avenue to extend Morton Park to English Bay Park

Dome shaped building skyline. The renderings look more like the usual doughnut style of

building around Nelson corridors.

the lack of thought for recognizing that cyclists do not rule this city. Cars have a right to

be in the west end even in 2040.  Cyclists seem to have a monopoly of the rights and yet they don’t acknowledge the rights of way to pedestrians and/or drivers. As a pedistrian

especially at Denman Davie & Beach, I am more at risk of being hit by a cyclist than a

car!!!!!!!!! I am more at risk for being yelled by a cyclist even though I have the right of way, than I am of being yelled at by a driver in a car!!!!!Enforcement of infractions needs to be addressed!!!!

“towers in the park” south of Davie Street

…hope the details of the initial priorities the team focussed on, are presented to residents

via mailouts, and we can keep in touch through City councillor liaison teams.

a set 30 years, where no rezoning can happen in key areas. This should be less firm a rule,

and open to public hearings

additional towers

affordable housing actually becoming a reality. We were just dubbed the most expensive

city in North America

affordable housing. As a West End resident for 18 years, living in coop housing, the cost of

this  ‘social housing’ is not affordable by an average person.

As I said, let’s make a big deal about rain gardens working from the get-go through proper

training and leadership.  Also, I don’t see anything about reducing noise of garbage pickup. It is constant and yucky.  Could you limit garbage pick up to certain days in entire West

 

 

End???

Barclay Heritage Square neglect

bridge to bridge traffic appears to be more important than walking and transit – parking is

prioritized over needs of pedestrians, transit and cycling. – Improvements to Morton Park needs to be included in section 10.3. It has opportunity to be grand West End square –

Harwood needs to be added as all ages bicycle route

Businesses on Davie, already busy, becoming overwhelmed by influx of people and

apparently no new stores.

Celebration of Gay lifestyle along parts of Davie. If it is a major gay center it will develop a

particular character anyway.

Davie Street becoming more of a wind tunnel than it alrady is & lack of services for all

these additional people coming into the neighbourhood.

Denman Street – it needs to be pedestrianized

density and green space

Didn’t see anything on safety. I’ve had many instances if theft and vandalism in the past

7years

emphasis on social housing. The city is not in the business of subsidizing housing at

taxpayers expense.

ensuring that services provided by Safeway, LCB liquor stores, London Drugs, Whole Foods

continue to be provided in the Denman/lower Robson/lower Davie area

Even greater density

Excessive fsr.

funding, also backlash against the removal of parking spaces

height of area F in Burrard corridor

how the neighborhood is going to revitalize its economic base and create more capital

wealth, especially given the fact that it is situated on one of highest-valued real estate zones and next to higher-income neighborhoods of the downtown core.

how will Plan finance growth particularly if zoning is changed through bylaw amendments

without rezoning process and no requirements for CACs for lower Robson and Davie increased density. Like focus on improved walkability but concerned that additional patios,

which I like, will compromise desirable continuous pedestrian weather protection . Wider

sidewalks needed. Also plan for improved pedestrian sidewalk lighting on Burrard, which is a dark zone at night. Decorative lighting less critical than basic pedestrian lighting. Not clear about the Social Housing: who owns the units, length of tenure, management costs and future costs for maintenance and utilites upgrades/replacement

How Zoning Exceptions granted, vague height guidelies, view preservation too subjective

(all provide too much wiggle room for developers and friends in City Hall)

I like that there may be some clarity for re zoning but concerned that developers will still

have free rein at re-zoning applications and residents will have little input or be dismissed at hearings.

I particularly do not like the plan to build a huge tower at the NW corner of Burrard and

Davie. That should remain “low” for numerous reasons. While I don’t mind adding a new

building to the Beach Towers, I concerned about the design of this project. The new buildings do not make any reference to the period design of the old heritage ones, and block sun and sea breezes from the entire area behind. This happened in Waikiki where a fine and deluxe row of towers thoroughly degrading the area behind and making it uninhabitable.

 

 

increased highrise development in lower Davie. keep the highrise development along th

outer corridors

It appears I live in a rezoning policy area (section E). What does that mean for me and my

family?

Keeping the davie plaza a permanent plaza. I would rather it be seasonal as no one uses it

in the winter

lack of local transit within neighbourhood. Given senior population would like to see some

form of public accessible transit all the way along Nelson to Burrard or indeed Yaletown.

laneway right of ways for vehicles and services along with pedestrians

‘larger format commercial uses’ on the slope, and hi-rise density on the western slope of

Davie Street.  It think the focus of density (towers) should be on Robson Street.

Library

limit through traffic along Thurlow and Pacific streets, particularly on the recidential

stretches. Return bus stop back to burrard and pacific (south bound).

Lower Davie plans may allow up to 7FSR if the development offers 20% of floor space for

social housing. The FSR return is excessive for the 20% in return. Also, allowing multiple towers in each block in Lower Davie will make the place feel like a wall of towers, removing access to sunlight and the presence of mixed forms and building heights. The building heights on major avenues like Burrard seem excessive and must follow some kind of reasonable maximum height. Finally, not a lot is offered in terms of amenities for the West End. What is the 5 year plan about the Library, community centres, schools, etc? The Amenities section was very disappointing.

making wider sidewalks.  How?  At the expense of greenspace or at the expense of traffic

flow?  I’d rather not lose either.  The side walks are wide enough.

Merchants being driven out by high rates and higher prices to pay for higher willdrive

altogether. Don’t let the Government reduce our safer for senior housing that it already has.

More needs to be done to green and clean up the laneways.

need more office in mixed use buildings.  Some are shown with reetail/residential only and

office space is very important.  The Plan does not seem to recognize and support the heritage precinct at Nelson and Burrard. The “Burrard Corridor” appears as a single high density corridor but there are significant heritage features (churches and St. Paul’s) as well as a large public park in front of the Wall centre.

need to address traffic on Denman

needs even more affordable housing

new development building heights affecting views, and changes to zoning bylaws in new

year, and height of some of the laneway housing projects proposed.  Concerned about keeping the current view corridor on lower Robson/Denman & Georgia streets.

No mention of cycle lanes. Bicycles can be one big problem.

Noise! ie. many recycling trucks and garbage pick-ups

Not sure we should be promoting low income housing in this area. I think it is

unrealistic…nothing in nthe west end could be low income housing with out financial help from some level of government.Would get a better bang for our money in a less expensive

area.

over population

park spaces, integration of wildlife

See some of my concerns in #1.  Also, laneways are currently crowded, difficult to

 

 

navigate, and contribute to noise/garbage.  Transport is ill-conceived. Increased

pedestrian traffic without public education for appropriate walking/cycling/driving safety will undoubtedly see more bicycle/auto/pedestrian accidents. Cyclists/autos/pedestrians can’t currently navigate the many traffic circles safely.

spot rezoning. Westbank’s project has seriously undermined the credibility that

planning/council want with existing residents. If you allow STIR type spot rezoning then this whole plan is useless – in fact it is worse than useless because we plan expect one thing and then out of the blue a massive form can just be accomodated regardless.

State of affairs on Denman St. Empty storefronts on Robson.

Still need to have flexability for unforseen opportunities that can come along and because

unanticipated social and other changes will occur over the timeline of the plan. Thank you and compliments to your professional staff for all they’ve done to advocate (sic) a

challenging process with positive results. Would like to see laneway ulitities placed

underground.

street homelessness

street parking (each and reducing)

that the heights and FSR restrictions are not clearly outlined to specify the limits for every

area of the West End. The plan currently uses the words ‘generally’. Too wishy-washy and nowhere near as definite as the language used for the policies on the main artery areas.

the capacity of amenities. Transit, sidewalks with increase population especially Childcare.

the emphasis on increasing family dwellings. Children do not belong in a densely populated

neighbourhood

the focus on a offensive rainbow cross walk

the generalizations that are written. Over developement of the area especially in the

laneways, could potentially increase congestion. Bottom line is if those areas aren’t planned properly, you are going to upset a lot of people.  The West End is known for being

walkable, people are going to continue to drive no matter what so introducing more residential is going to inevitably increase traffic flow.  Solutions to this would be a West

End PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) system. If the this transit system was smaller, quiet, and green powered you would see a lot of users of this system.  I think it would be a great

solution of moving people around in the west end.

the highrises on the lower Davie area. I did not realize that highrises are permitted on the

northside of Davie/Denman. And I am really concerned about the highrise in the 1700 block south side on Pendrell Street which would completely box me in. I am wondering whether the new ownership of this land will fall under the old 22 stories zoning regulations, or whether the new zoning regulations, which I believe are limited to 4 or 5 storeys

The increased pedestrian/bike access making it harder for cars to access the neighborhood.

I commute and getting in and out of the west end by car is very very challenging.

the lack of existing / potential funding for social housing.

the lack of market rental housing. Lower Davie development should be 100% market rental

for density bonusing. Enough social housing being added elsewhere.

The policies use the tee,

timelines – 30 years!

Too many bright colours and clashing themes.

traffic and bikes as stated before

transit, and would prefer to see improvements say within 10 years, not 30 years!

 

 

transporatation

tree replacement – too many small trees

View and light blockage

We don’t need more rainbow stuff, even though I’m gay.  Make it one of a kind areas, world

class.  Make the bldgs energy efficient/green/using solar/latest technology

zoning density changes and bonusing

zoning regulations put in place now surviving a change of municipal government to a less

enlightened position.

Don’t like the plan

continued massive densification ruining livability and destroying affordable housing

• Potential for citywide or regional policies to override what is written in the Plan.

50 – 60 stories

Affordability, And where is the Vancouver Housing Authority

affordable liveability  I understand the lack of area for developers and see this re-zoning

scenario as a chance for developers to make $$$ by creating market units for sale west end will become Yaletown but the realestate developers will make $$$

building heights and densities.  Driving and parking nightmares.

density, entertainment zone, lack of engagement of significant segments of the community.

developers get to buy increased density by having Social Housing.  This is wrong on so many

levels

dividing the “corridors” from the neighbourhoods by building heights.  The should be

consistent with the limits on upper Robson and Davie.  I did not see new park designations, more people less green space.

Excessive height (six storeys) of some proposed laneway housing

feels like a war on cars. I’m a cyclicst and you can’t carry plywood on your bike. Ease up a

bit

high densities on Lower Davie Street and Lower Robson Street.  Ground Floor commercial

uses on Lower Davie Street.  The encouragement of highrise towers when residents specifically said they did NOT want more of this type of housing. The conversion of Davie Street to a nightclub zone.

High density development (up to 8.75 FSR on Robson Street from Jervis to Denman) +

Excessive height (six storeys) of some proposed laneway infill construction + ack of specificity on heights and densities in some areas + Lack of adequate time for the public to

review the 30-year plan

high level of uncertainty remaining due to excess use of general statements in the plan, and

the absence of a professional, independent review of the draft.

high rises, density

Home ownership should not just be an option on the “corridaors”.  Whose equity are you

building?  The City’s desire to see more renatl housing is leading to new developments that will be luxury rentals instead of accessible condos for those who want to stay in the area, but can’t afford to.

i am concerned about the flambouant design. it is not beautification.

I need more space and time to provide  my comments

increased density, more highrises, laneprojects

its narrow focus. Vancouver is a growing urban center. This plan does not place enough

 

 

emphasis on creating strong public realms, on truly walkable enjoyable neighborhoods.

Adding bump outs at intersections and rainbow crosswalks does not reinvent the public realm. Those are quick fixes, not long term visions

lack of commitments

Lack of desnity provisions for Burrard corridor.  High densities proposed for Lower Robson

and Lower Davie.  Removal of tower separation guideline for Lower Davie. Lack of genuine consultation on the plan – we went from general concepts to detailed zoning provisions in one step.  The lack of a understandable graphic images was a major failing of the planning process.

Lack of meaningful public consultation and demonstrable evidence of local consensus for

the plan.

lack of planning for dedicated space for seniors which would replace the existing scattered

buildings: Kay’s place which is too small, Barclay Manor which is inaccessible.  Most seniors

live alone and need opportunities for informal social time in conjunction with a referral and information centre and a wellness clinic.  The present services are inadequate and too scattered geographically.

lack of raised crosswalks, stop signs, speed bumps, traffic circles, more greening of the

west end needed.

lack of time for public to review the 20 year plan

lane housing over 2 storeys and too many tower blicks

laneway homes, over development, llies by developers for lowcost and senior housing, the

waste of taxpayers money on those cold,metal chairs on sidewlks, no one sits on.

loss of green space, loss of affordable housing, too many high rise sky scrapers taking over

the city skyline, loss of mountain and sea views.view

Make Davie all 2 level commercial shopping. Keep that area as residential.

many areas including the population increase of 9000 and the the height and density of

proposed buildings particularly along Lower Davie and Robson

misrepresentation of the needs of 65+ W/E residents; infill (laneway housing increasing

density while not specifying that density must be justified by limiting occuopancy to parents requiring 3 or more bedrooms!: failure to acknowledge the specific transit users problems with service in the W/E.m

Noise, traffic, inaccessability of areas during special events

our future on our site

over expansion too quickly

parking, high rises are too high, lack of retaining hertiage buildings, too many changes to

the feel of the neighborhood

proposed heights of towers adjacent to my home

proposed increase in density and population; possibility of 6-story infill housing;

rapid and high growth.

Repeating “Maxine’s” building along Lower Davie Street.  Density is too high. Lower the

permitted density for Lower Davie.  Burrard corridor should have specific density provisions.  Laneway infill will result in privacy and shadowing impacts – lower the

permitted height of laneway infill.

See previous answer

shaded tunnels of streets with high towers and no ‘street’ environment, infills covering

spaces previously REQUIRED to be kept free of structures and many other concerns already

 

 

iterated by others at West End Neighbors, Gordon House, West End Seniors, and elsewhere.

short timelines for consultation and adoption, vagueness on height restrictions, and

possibility of plan being over ridden anyway

The addition of 10000+ residents with little infrastructure improvements. Also concerned

about the plan to create low rise commercial space along Davie street thereby taking away the character of the neighbourhood

The closing off of the English Bay area and lower Davie st and allowing the possibility of

high rises etc. This is a landmark area, known world wide and we plan to shut off sunlight , views and open it to heavy population — crazy and frightening !!!!!!

The height of the allowable buildings, changing the character of the neighbourhood by

allowing taller buildings and more commercial, did not address at all how public spaces

(like the library or community centre) would keep up with the increased density. Again, this is an appalling small space to write a thoughtful and complete response.

the increased density. Why the move to so many high-rises? minimum 20 stories and up to

40 stories. Concerned the push to lane way housing and narrowing of lane ways will also

lead to unbelievable congestion.  Concerned we will lose the sense of green spaces and tree lined streets. Also disappointed that the plan relegates Burrard to Thurlow as “corridor”. I

don’t get any sense that people thought about this as also WEST END neighbourhood.  Very

disappointed at the push to 40+ stories. We also have to consider that other parts of the

“downtown” not the West End are building many many high-rises. There is a planned 75 story very close to Burrard and Beach. If you look at the West End from False Creek we are becoming a jumble of sky spheres. We are going to lose what keeps Vancouver beautiful..the mountain backdrops.

The lack of detailed information provided for the specific topics identified in question 1.

There is also a concern for the changing “look’ of Davie Street, with the “wall” of towers along the lower part offering unaffordable (and excessively small) housing units, while a

noisy, nightlife “scene” connected to Granville creates more social problems along the

upper portion. More overpriced small rental housing units in towers like the Alexandra is not a community amenity.

The lack of genuine non-partisan consultation.

the top-down dictatorial developer-oriented style of Vancouver “planning.”

the vagueness (or lack of clarity)

The way residents of my community are being ignored

Traffic impact Noise pollution Waste of funds We do not have a housing crisis but a

mangement crisis Slum Lords vacanct spaces and places unaffordable housing due to Greed and nothing else Trees and Parks are plenty Better lighting should have been in the budget long ago Where is the budget for new signs on the roads more traffic and demlotion will be absolutley intolerable and not warranted

transit (should be higher), need trees and setback to reduce claustraphobia, landscaping

(no amateur raingardens), no laneways, no decrease parking, efficient access into/out of west end to north and east

What about concern RE: Earthquakes? The buildings of higher, not for us, but benefit

offshore speculators or developers.

 

 

4.  Do you have any additional comments about the West End Community Draft plan?

 

• Potential for citywide or regional policies to override what is written in the Plan.

 

 

• Lack of adequate time for the public to review the 30-year plan (parts were available

earlier, but the complete 200-page package was just released Nov 6, for Council decision

Nov 20)

• Major gaps remaining in information, lack of specificity on heights and densities in some areas, too much use of general phrases.

• Need for more time for larger segment of the community to be properly engaged and

influence the Plan

• Addition of significant population and density to an already dense area

• Proposal for conversion of Davie Street to an entertainment zone

• Removal of residential as a permitted use from all shopping streets

• Lack of density guidance for Burrard corridor

• “Filling in” of Lower Davie street with podium-and-tower developments (example recently constructed at Davie and Bidwell) mixed-use developments at up to 7.0 FSR from

Broughton to Denman

• Removal of block face tower separation guideline for Lower Davie Street

• Pre-zoning of Lower Davie Street to permit additional density without CAC or Public

Hearing

• High density development (up to 8.75 FSR on Robson Street from Jervis to Denman)

• Excessive height (six storeys) of some proposed laneway infill construction

A community can be enhanced without necessarily increasing density at any cost. The plan

puts too much emphasis on increasing density, which makes one wonder about the purpose of a community plan in the first place. Is it a way to obtain legitimacy to build more and

higher? Making the West End more livable includes things such as optimizing and expanding

amenities to current residents, making the community more livable in small but tangible ways (with more walkable sideways, more cycling access, better lighting, more public spaces, etc.). Why is the focus of the community plan report on building form, increasing building heights at every opportunity and providing unnecessary returns to developers for fewer contributions to the city (which the city can use to improve amenities)?

A great need here.  Seniors must be looked after better than the bikers in this city.

Prioritize. All will one day be seniors and should have a better ending to their lives!

appreciate how comprehensive it is

Appreciated the inclusive nature of the plan and the focus on the Davie neighbourhood

remaining LGBTQ community highlighted.

 

That one specific transit piece, up and down Nelson would be helpful to so many, particularly helpful in connecting seniors in the neighbourhood to St. Paul’s Hospital services.

Be specific -say that all new development will conform to zoning – there is no point having

a plan but allowing for new innovative programs like STIR which insert 22 storey/limited parking formats into the middle of an RM / 6 storey area. Foll me once shame on you, fool

me twice shame on me. We want more transparency and concrete assurances that spot rezones will not be approved. If this plan is not to be adhered to it just discouraging to

even be consuted and is just a waste of time – don’t even bother.

Clearly, there is a need for additional community consultation that is appropriately

reflected in a revised draft plan and a neighbourhood-wide survey to establish the factual extent of support for it.

Enough with the studying and standing around, lets just get on with it already!!!

Excellent informative PP presentation during the “Learning Plan” sessions held @ the

Community Centre recently by Holly Sovdi,and Planning team.  Assurance that the Zoning

 

 

Bylaws changes will be proposed in a seperate public meeting for comment, early in 2014,

and hopefully residents will be able to have chance to comment and effect change, with present & future Vision, as these changes affect us all.  To minimize the impact of density increases, upon current resident neighborhoods, should be a priority, while ‘revitalizing the neighborhood villages’ as stated by Planners priorities of the plan, is welcome, and exciting.

Given that the West End already has many existing character buildings, it will be important

to provide specific details about the maximum heights and densities (FSR’s) for all new buildings on the sites that can be developed. In addition, more detail is required for the

maximum heights and densities of laneway infill projects. Residents in every part of the

West End should know well in advance, what future building forms could look like if a site is redeveloped.

I am worried that many west end residents seem to like things status quo. and no new

growth or renewal can happen, and will discourage investments. Thus the area may become ghetto between Robson and Davie.

I do not support the removal and replacement of the big trees with smaller narrower

“street trees”. We need a programme to inventory and protect the grand heritage trees that canopy our streets and provide oxygen, shade and beauty for all – one that promotes adding to the heritage tree stock by planting new ones and replacing ones that die. As it stands, I have little confidence in the level of skill or knowledge of those currently responsible for street tree policy, nor those actually out in the field doing the work. There seems to be a lack of hierarchical supervisory structure, and professional tree management currently in the West End.

 

I want much more attention paid to rerouting traffic off Denman Street which should not be a traffic shoot for North Shore commuters. Denman Street is a community centre in its own right with a high school, recreation centre, many shops and people of all ages including

very young children crossing it all day long, which at the moment is a very dangerous thing to do. Consider making left turns at Denman and Georgia illegal 24/7, and legal at Burrard and Georgia. Put in more shopper parking and eliminate parking restrictions during “rush hours”, widen sidewalks, install traffic bulges and bollards and spaces for sidewalk dining, and generally squeeze the commuter traffic right off Denman Street.

 

Differentiate the “villages”. Denman, Davie, Robson Street and Granville Street “villages” need to be each distinct in its character and appeal. Resist the almost “Fascistic” pressure from WE Business Improvement Association to “mall-ify” and homogenize everything on the Robson-Denman-Davie-Granville loop because they hate diversity, they really hate people with disabilities of any kind, and actually they really don’t like West End residents at all. WEBIA only likes our money and then they want us to disappear into our apartments leaving the streets vacant and lifeless. Cut back on WEBIA’s ability to make decisions beyond those that affect what takes place on private property. Prevent WEBIA from having any influence on what takes place in or on the streets of the West End. WEBIA if given half a chance will destroy the unique, buoyant and vibrant culture of the West End.

 

More attention needs to be given to heritage maintenance and renewal by City Planning. Developers of new buildings need to present designs that refer to the unique character of surrounding heritage buildings. Existing heritage building need to be considered as part of, and allowed to influence the design of new buildings.

 

More attention needs to be paid to type, style and quality of street level retail. One example of a really egregious and violent assault on the West End is the new big-box

 

Safeway at Robson and Denman. Big-box stores can easily be accommodated in the West End, and if they are designed with small street level retail space opportunities, and make an effort to be people friendly, such developments can have a very positive impact. This Safeway development mocks the idea of a people-friendly streetscape. Its design is outrageously ugly, mean and nasty apparently, and functionally-speaking a disaster obviously intended to destroy the humanity of that corner permanently. How City Planners could have permitted that development without modification boggles the mind.

I do not want to see ‘normalization’ of roadway at Morton park, or Pacific at Bute, etc.–the angled streets that split to follow topography make more sense to me. If park space to be increased in these areas, I would rather see by emphasizing the sharp corners or leave as-is, which already works very well.

 

As a gay man, I think the increased Qmunity rainbows and pink bus stops and glitter balls is too too much.  I like the gay village on Davie, and the concentration of bars, restaurants, and gay businesses.  But I think decorating the block with cheap baubles and paint is quite cheap and dishonouring.  I would much rather see more significant improvements.  I do like the blocked Bute street block at Hamburger Marys, and would think that expanding that space as a formal square with businesses at the edges would be fantastic.  A sculpture/fountain on the edge or large actual monument (like the arch in greenwich

village for example) would be more appropriate and significant.

 

The lighting of the seawall and dark areas is actually quite welcome as-is.  There could be improvements in lighting in some intersections (like the well-done intersection at Comox and Denman), but off-street and on the edges on the seawall between centres of activity should remain lower lighting or no lighting.  An example of poorly done lighting is along Comox greenway.  The new lower lighting (balls) is actually quite good, but the taller

street lights with new LEDs is way way too bright when in the neighbourhood.  I recommend hooding the edges of these higher lights or removing them altogether.  They are essentially

floodlights on the buildings on each side, and actually leave after images after looking at them.  Not cool, and not an improvement in safety (blinding) or ambience (glaring).

 

Taller buildings and larger retail on the slopes is not desirable.  The higher buildings towards the CBD and on top of the hill are great, but within the west end, other than a few concentrated areas, I would prefer to see better (denser) use of some of the lanes.  As well pointed out in this plan, the lane ways are under-utilized, noisy, and could be much much improved.  An example of a good lane way is along Mole Hill.  An example of a bad lane way is behind 1800 block Robson between Robson and Alberni. I would like to see reduction in size of commercial trucks (e.g. huge tractor trailers at big box grocery stores), and size

(and noise) and frequency of garbage collection in lanes.

 

Traffic circles are great, but speed bumps are not.  I would like to see removal or banning of rolling bumps on lanes and ‘calmed’ streets.

 

Arts at the community centres and in the three identified ‘villages’ (hate the term) are ok, but I think trying to make the art gallery at Bute and Robson as the poster child for ‘art’ on Robson is quite sad.  Its a great hotel with good investment in art, but Robson is a commercial street and it should revel in that.  If a good art dealer/gallery wants to take up residence that is great, but I don’t see it, and think this is not where the effort should be placed.  Improve Robson’s street’s sidewalks, walkability, and off-street parking.  Allow through traffic to move and easy access to off-street parkades and short-term convenience

 

 

parking on street.  Connections to Alberni in the retail area are great.

 

VIVA vancouver stuff is nice idea, but so far except for the seating area in the parking spots in front of the baguette restaurant on Robso

I don’t want social housing in an already overpopulated and highly tourist visited areas; I

hate loosing more of the West End character; keep the mountains and English Bay view as is since t6hat is for everybody, it is perfect now;

I live in the 1800 block of Comox & the bike lanes have completed screwed up our street on

either side of Denman.   Bike lanes are a great idea but not at the expense of everyone else.   Comox Street always had lots of bikes & there do not seem to be any more since the

street was destroyed.   Getting in or out is now next to impossible & EXTREMELEY

frustrated for everyone.

I want satisfactory answers to ALL these issues:

 

Potential for citywide or regional policies to override what is written in the Plan.

Lack of adequate time for the public to review the 30-year plan (parts were available earlier, but the complete 200-page package was just released Nov 6, for Council decision Nov 20)

Major gaps remaining in information, lack of specificity on heights and densities in some areas, too much use of general phrases.

Need for more time for larger segment of the community to be properly engaged and

influence the Plan

Addition of significant population and density to an already dense area

Proposal for conversion of Davie Street to an entertainment zone

Removal of residential as a permitted use from all shopping streets

Lack of density guidance for Burrard corridor

“Filling in” of Lower Davie street with podium-and-tower developments (example recently constructed at Davie and Bidwell) mixed-use developments at up to 7.0 FSR from Broughton to Denman

Removal of block face tower separation guideline for Lower Davie Street

Pre-zoning of Lower Davie Street to permit additional density without CAC or Public

Hearing

High density development (up to 8.75 FSR on Robson Street from Jervis to Denman) Excessive height (six storeys) of some proposed laneway infill construction

I’m confident that few people have actually read it.  I think it’s ill-conceived to have it go

before council with so many loose threads, vagueness and little buy-in from the public.

I’m shocked that the plan went from general concepts to very specfic provisions in such a

short period of time. I don’t believe residents really got a chance to explore options for re- development under the plan.  Very sad to see the changes proposed for Lower Davie Street.

I’m very disappointed with the planning process. This was not an exploration of different

options for the West End – it appears it was simply an exercise in accommodating 10,000 people in the easiest and most profitable way for developers to house them.  The community indicated it had enough tower development, yet the plan provides more towers, and at greater densities than seen elsewhere in the neighbourhood. It appears no other options, such as mid-rise development, were considered. No options are provided for affordable home ownership, even though this was a housing objective clearly identified by the community.  The lack of maximum density provisions for the Burrard corridor is an indication that the community is likely to see high density developments rammed through the approval process with little regard for neighbourhood character or livability.  The removal of the tower separation guidelines for Lower Davie Street is very concerning – this

 

 

has been a basic “building block” of a successful West End.  The more open streetscape on

this portion of Davie Street was a distinctive characteristic of the West End, but with little public input is now to be “sealed up” with developments out of place in the West End. What a shame that a process that was mandated to include “innovative engagement techniques” with promises of visualizations of various development options devolved to a 1970’s top down approach with the public being invited to place “sticky notes” on display boards.

It seems to fit in with what the city is trying to shoehorn down the throats of every

neighbourhood in the city.

Just put money into infrastructure maintenance, back off on over-development, we’re

supersaturated.No new laneway homes or buildings over 20 stories, or making the West End a theme park. The stupid idea to put in cold, metal chairs that no one sits on or laneways that have had pedestrians hit and traffic more conjested. Quit selling off our community to development.Money into infrastructure maintenance only without trying to make us more conjested.   Keep Vancouver liveable.

lack of density guidance for the Burrard St. corrider amongst many other things

Large population increase in already dense area despite lack of confidence in delivery and

timing of amenity improvements (schools, library, parks, community centre, etc.)

Lack of density guidance in several areas leaves door open for excessive height and density Adoption of this Plan prematurely will effectively destroy community ability to determine its future, as one mass rezoning public hearing will upzone large tracts, leaving future development to be approved simply by internal decision of Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board. This will be too far from public involvement and scrutiny, and leaves the door open for corruption in future years.

The Plan leaves too much leeway for backroom negotiations, city and regional policies to override many critical policies and directions in this Plan.

Though City staff deserve praise for considerable effort to communicate with residents on

the Plan, the entire process appears to have been too strongly directed top-down at City Hall, and it appears to be exceedingly favourable to development property owners and the development industry. It has failed to give adequate consideration to the wisdom of the community.

I fear that the Plan if implemented as written will deteriorate the health, livability, character, and happiness of the community.

The community should have been given a target population and then left to evaluate

several scenarios to achieve the target.

The City should have provided more time and more resources, including independent advisors, to help the community understand and participate.

The City still has a chance to rectify all of the above problems IF it is workign in good faith,

in the public interest, by NOT approving the current draft Plan, by extending the process by

6 to 9 months, and by giving the community more resources and more power to influence the process and outcome.

I am concerned that political agents associated with a civic party, funded largely by developers, have been lobbying certain segments of the community. Those segments have received biased information, and are probably supporting the Plan, without having been presented with the complete picture and implications of the Plan for the entire community, long term. This looks like a divide and conquer tactic.

Love the water protection, density, goals of attractive business facades and weather

protection and sunlight and affordable housing. Would like to see laneway housing not get a free pass on the parking, rental and social housing initiatives. Just because they don’t build too many stories high doesn’t make them exempt from all other concerns.

 

 

neighborhood consultation has been rushed, and one-sided.

Not enough time to have Public Hearings. Smaller buildings. Not enough consultation. Too

much power given to Manager concerning power to give rezonings.

not for now

Past experience shows that these plans are just fluff and the reality proves to be quite

different.

Please do more to clean up the laneways!  Even though there is proposed rezoning to

increase building heights along Burrard, Georgia, and Alberni Streets I do not think that goes far enough. I would like the zoning to allow for a few preeminent landmark buildings with much greater heights.

Please hold off approval until there has been some serious time allotted for consideration

and public engagement.

Process of last few years leave me very suspicious of fairness and completeness of zoning

reviews.

Really badly planned. I am quite shocked at how this plan is being rammed through. Sadly,

my comments will mean nothing. The WestEnd deserves better!

Start with defining your planning paradigm, your design rules, and your social values.

Take more time and do the job right. Shoving a bitter pill down the throats of local

residents will only produce bile and disgusting upchuck.

The entire plan should be SCRAPPED and re-think a low rise development plan.

The key points of concern (RED FLAGS) are:

· Addition of significant population and density to an already dense area

· Proposal for conversion of Davie Street to an entertainment zone

· Removal of residential as a permitted use from all shopping streets

· Lack of density guidance for Burrard corridor

· “Filling in” of Lower Davie street with “Alexandra-type” mixed-use developments at up to

7.0 FSR from Broughton to Denman

· Removal of block face tower separation guideline for Lower Davie Street

· Pre-zoning of Lower Davie Street to permit additional density without CAC or Public

Hearing

· High density development (up to 8.75 FSR on Robson Street from Jervis to Denman)

· Excessive height (six storeys) of some proposed laneway housing

The Pacific-Beach Avenue-Denman traffic shute destroys any hope of Denman becoming a

real “high street”. Pedestrians are chased off the road every single day by north shore commuters, worse in rain and poor light. Beach Avenue is no different. – it needs cross

walks and/or traffic lights at each and every intersection adjacent to English Bay. A left-

turn prohibition onto Georgia would easily do the trick, but I guess that would be dreaming as long as traffic flows to the north shore are given precedence over the neighbourhood. Having a bike route on the sidewalk along the main entry points to English Bay beach and bath house is the worst conceivable idea creating un-mixable, dangerous situation each and every day.

The plan must be directed to a slow moderate growth and enable to provide for the

community to hold a tight control of general growth, rezoning and spot-rezoning applications in the residential neighbourhood as well as social commercial  public areas. The City to establish a legitimate (elected) community organization like association and to collaborate with the community’s and people’s interests on their process is required strongly.

 

 

Open ended development and zoning control policies are not appropriate for the

community.

The plan provides increased space for children and the Qmunity.  A Youth Centre has

appeared at the WECC, but there is no plan for a centralized, purpose-build facility for seniors, the population of which will double in the next 20 years. I have lived in the West

End for 30 years and there has been no increase in the space for recreational and cultural facilities:library, community centres.

The process was deeply flawed with the terms of reference changed to eliminate the

watchdog role of the citizens’ advisory group. Probably less than 7% of the population were involved in outreach and insufficient time has been available to digest the latest 200 page

document. An extension of at least 6 months is required to correct many shortcomings and

can be best achieved by having a neighbourhood group representative of the community engage in a truly collaborative conversation with staff to come up with a plan that is acceptable to most of the residents.

The public consultation appears to be a sham, I think the development industry wants to

densify the west end because the beaches and views are easier to sell, rather than creating vibrant living areas elsewhere and exploiting and densifying other cool areas such as main street and the drive where there is more room.

The west end has achieved a remarkable and successsful balance of close living, the plans

put forward will over develop without the amenities and infrastructure to compromised and undermine the livability of the neighbourhood.

There are major gaps remaining in information, there is lack of specificity on heights and

densities in some areas (70 stories really ?), much too manny general phrases.

More time is needed for a larger segment of the community to be properly engaged and influence the Plan

This plan is not sustainable, not renter or owner or business friendly.

It is another sell – out to the developers like all the councils have done since the beginning but this time carefully greenwashed!

We need proper amount of time

We need honest, extensive, and accurate details of where towers are proposed and why and how that additional density is going to impact us.

What knockon effect will all this new development of such expensive ‘hoes’ have on rents

and affordable housing

Will we have increased police presence in West End?  At present, there are often only TWO CARS on call for the whole peninsula.  Ask the VPD if you don’t believe me; this is true.

What impact will more and more people in West End have on hospital access, physician

access, school access, community services?  No one I’ve spoken to thinks this will be positive.

Why should the West End have to absorb so many people when no other neighborhoods are

putting in these towers and these infills to such an extensive degree.

IT IS NOT FAIR to the demographic living in the West End, which has a significantly lower median income than other parts of the COV.

Many other concerns. I will be writing to the Council and Mayor, and at the Wednesday

council meeting.

Vision Vancouver has failed Vancouverites if they proceed with this Draconian Plan, which they are trying to foist on us with carrot and stick philosophy, and FAR too little time for citizens’ review.

Given the number of seniors in the West End, what the neighborhood needs really is a mailout of the Plan and many, many more meetings.  Many seniors have NO internet and NO

smartphone and no Facebook pages.  They are being taken advantage, and it is morally,

 

 

ethically and empirically WRONG and disgusts me.

Vision proceeds with this plan, they can be assured I will NEVER vote for them again, and will influence as many humans as I possibly can to also not re-elect them.

I suggest Vision confer with numerous other previous officeholders from the COV (i.e. Phillip Owen, Fred Bass, and the like) to discover whether it is thought by others with

experience in this area that this is a good idea.

I wlll take sizable bets they will NOT recommend its adoption in the present state.  Big money.

We need to ensure sunlight can penetrate most residential areas. This means limiting the

height of highrise buildings around the periphery of the West End.

We need to start getting rid of these hideous 3 storey walk up boxes.

would like more details and molre time before anything definite is voted on. I think the

West End is a vital part of the city and needs more consideration!

Yes.  I believe now that this has all been futile. This plan will go ahead no matter what the

neighbourhood wants.

What happened at 1401 Comox is shameful.

The West End is being ruined-for me-and I know for many of my neighbours.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.