This evening I am on the speakers’ list to talk with City Council about a proposal from Grandview Calvary Baptist Church to redevelop their property at 1st and Victoria as an “intentional community” housing individuals who are hard to house elsewhere. Grandview Woodlands Area Council has the documents on this proposal.
The Church wants to put up a huge barn-like 4-storey structure that will dwarf surrounding houses (see image below). Not only that, but their design includes nothing that comes even close to reflecting the neighbourhood’s historic and current buildings. It will, almost literally, stick out like an enormous sore thumb on one of our major intersections.

My position tonight will have three parts:
a) I fully approve the development of this site. It is currently used as a private car park for the Church (which is further up First Avenue) and looks shabby. My personal preference is that the site become a pocket park. However, that seems to be a pipe dream and so I am content that a good building will improve the look of the intersection;
b) I don’t know enough about the Church and its programs and so cannot comment specifically (although I have read a number of comments from neighbours that question the Church’s ability to control previous programs.) However, I am in favour generally of creating housing opportunities for the hard to house in our neighbourhood; and so I am in principle in support of the Church’s proposed use;
c) The design is so overwhelming and out of character with the neighbourhood that it must be changed. I will ask that Council send the proposal back for re-design before granting approval. My suggestion would be that the design eliminate certain uses that are not relevant to the primary use (see below), and that the design be spread over a larger footprint on the site. These changes should allow the design to be scaled down from four storeys to three at most and, hopefully, two.
I have attended a couple of public presentations by the proposers and their architects, and their response to our concerns over the design were less than helpful. In fact, on both occasions they essentially refused to discuss the design, saying that their “programming and business plan” required the size and style proposed. However, their “business plan” includes offices for rent and a large community kitchen, neither of which seem essential to the proposed use.
Finally, I want to note that I assume their programming is designed to meet all Federal and Provincial regulations for such things; and I assume their financing and accounting set ups are designed to meet all necessary regulations for non-profits and churches. Why then, should their building design not be obliged to meet current zoning regulations? Why should it be that the one part of their proposal that directly affects the neighbourhood (and will for a generation at least) should be subject to the whims of their “business plan”?