Getting to the nitty-gritty of renewal issues. If you are interested …
There is more information at https://britanniarenewal.org/
Getting to the nitty-gritty of renewal issues. If you are interested …
There is more information at https://britanniarenewal.org/
Last night was the monthly meeting of the Grandview Woodland Area Council (GWAC). These ZOOM meetings attract a wide selection of local residents, and last night was no exception.
The meeting began with a short presentation by Nathan Davidowitz regarding the removal of bus stops in various neighbourhoods, including in Grandview along Nanaimo. Nathan noted the success that Dunbar Residents Association had in persuading Translink to adjust their proposed plans and asked GWAC to do the same. The Board agreed to look at writing letters to both City Council and Translink.
The meeting then moved to the main agenda item, a report on the Britannia Renewal project, which was given primarily by Craig who is both Chair of GWAC and a member of the Britannia Board.
Craig went through the current state of thinking about the four main buildings proposed for the site:
The new ice rink in the northwest corner is probably the first one up for detailed design. There is some thought that the draft plans may be open for public discussion this spring with construction in about 2-3 years. Some thought had gone into making two rinks, but the current plan is for one ice sheet with changing rooms and office, with perhaps a sports area on the roof.
Next over would be the new pool building. It will be slightly larger than the current pool and thoroughly modernised. The building will also house an 8,000 sqft fitness centre, along with a 69-person childcare space.
On the northeast corner we have the new Library building, which will have a custom art gallery space, some innovative art workshops, a clean air facility, and another 69-person childcare area.
Along the Commercial Drive frontage will be a new social and cultural building with a performance space on grade level. There will be a large dining hall and a commercial kitchen to serve Britannia’s various food programs. Other areas will be for arts & cultural spaces, along with the Seniors’ Centre, the Teen Centre, and Eastside Family Place. A rooftop garden is proposed.
A number of problems were identified, including the reluctance of the Vancouver School Board to pay for moving their workshops and offices to a new area. If that cannot be resolved, major design changes will be required to accommodate VSB’s needs.
But the major issues are still housing and height. Regardless of what locals or Britannia might want, the City is insistent that the site must accommodate a certain level of housing. The proposal is to put housing on top of the three new buildings along Venables. The height of those buildings will be determined by the number of housing units the City insists on.
The Britannia Board has stated their position that buildings should not be taller than 60 feet, and that ANY and ALL housing on the site must be truly affordable; they want nothing to do with market housing of any kind. Britannia’s hope is that the City will keep the number of units low and that ALL should be for indigenous seniors.
At this point, neither the number of units to be built nor the height of the buildings have been finalized with the City. Unfortunately, many of us are not expecting the best from this Council and their staff.
This was a typically useful GWAC meeting, with a good group of informed and interested citizens debating solid ideas and proposals.
The “renewal” of Britannia has been going on for a very long time now. Some of the events of the last six years can be traced here.
The “renewal” of Britannia has been going on for a very long time now. Some of the events of the last six years can be traced here.
As regular readers will be aware, we have been discussing for a decade the possibility of putting low-income housing on the Britannia Community Centre site when it is renewed. There is a very clear division of opinion in the neighbourhood about whether housing should be on the site at all and, if there is to be housing, how many units can be accommodated.
As I say, we have been discussing this for about a decade and the City of Vancouver are now offering yet another chance for the public to give their opinion.
Whether you are for or against housing on the site, I hope as many residents as possible take the chance to share their views in this way
As many of you will know, the future of Britannia is still in flux after years of meetings and workshops. Today, I received the following:
The Britannia Board is meeting on November 22 to discuss and decide on the Society priorities for 2021.
Your feedback and insights are extremely important. Please complete the following survey by Friday, November 13 at Noon.
Regards, Britannia Board Development Committee
Please let them have your feedback on this most important Grandview resource.
“seeking professional architectural services required to implement the Britannia Renewal Master Plan that include rezoning the 18-acre integrated Britannia Community Services Centre, Britannia Secondary School, and Britannia Elementary Community School site (the “Site”), and preparing a detailed functional program for Building 1, which includes a swimming pool, recreation spaces, childcare, and non-market housing.”
Submission date is 12th March, but I am sure it will be a while before we hear who has won the bid.
Today, the Britannia Renewal Master Plan — or at least the consultants’ draft of it — was released at a Presentation and Open House display in Gym D at Britannia. Today gave us a welcome break from days of rain, and there was a fairly good crowd of locals assembled for the presentation.
At the previous Open House, we were offered three concepts, and comments/suggestions were requested. One of the concepts, the so-called Parker Street alignment (which I also voted for) was the clear favourite:
The consultants took these suggestions and preferences and have submitted a singular design for the Master Plan, based on the Parker concept:
In this plan, the heavy lifting for both major amenities and housing runs along the Parker Street edge of the site, and takes advantage of the slope — equivalent they said to six storeys — running east-west across the site.
The controversy for many is whether housing should be on the site at all, and if so, where should it be. The consultants made it clear that housing on the site was a requirement received from the City, and that it should be above community amenities. This has created some design constraints, which they have tried to solve by placing the large community facilities in a block along Parker, with housing above. To get the number of units required, they are relying on the discretionary height in the IM zone along Venables which can go to 100 feet.
(Note that other areas of the site will be designed to match the maximum discretionary height of 6 storeys in the surrounding RM zones, and 4 storeys along Commercial).
The consultants were asked about the engineering required to put housing above facilities such as ice rinks, pools, and gyms that need wide clear spans without central supports. They agreed that the engineering would be significantly more expensive. However, they believe that with the cost of land in the City, the additional engineering will still be less expensive that buying a similar size parcel of land nearby.
I am in a minority among friends and colleagues in supporting significant housing on the site. I had three caveats: all the housing had to be public not market; no green space was to be sacrificed; and the housing units should not be too high. The first two requirements have been met, and the third — the height — has still to be determined. However, I assume they will go for the full 100 foot as discussed. I would not care for that, but the need is so great that I would probably gnash my teeth while nodding in agreement.
Elizabeth Murphy pointed out that, if the housing was not to go above the facilities, then 10 storeys would not be needed (the facilities — rink, pool, etc — will be at least two or three storeys in height by themselves). Her preference is that the City buy enough land along the IM corridor of Venables to accomplish the same level of housing in smaller units. That is a very reasonable position. However, the cost of land would make that extremely expensive and, just as important to me, I would like to retain that industrial land for industries and employers to develop jobs.
We are to expect no more news until the Fall or Winter of 2018 when the rezoning discussion is set to begin. At that time, the massing and numbers of housing will be established. I only hope that the serious debate about housing does not distract from all the other benefits we can receive from a thorough renewal of our most important public space.
There was a another very interesting meeting at GWAC yesterday evening.
GWAC Director Craig Ollenberger gave a report on various transportation issues facing Grandview-Woodland. These included:
GWAC Secretary Susan Briggs reported on correspondence with Strathcona Residents Assoc (SRA) and others regarding noise from the railways crossing our neighbourhoods. This has to do with the expansion of the Port of Vancouver. SRA seeks to have the project subject to the Provincial Environmental; Assessment process which is more stringent than the Federal process. So far, the Provincial government’s position is that this is Federal jurisdiction and they have no power to intervene. GWAC will continue to monitor this issue.
Susan also reported on the growing number of GW lots being swept up in real estate/development assemblies, and complaints that GWAC has received from residents across the district.
This led to a vigorous discussion about the City’s Rate of Change policy and its failure to protect the vast pool of affordable rental suites in GW’s so-called “single family housing”.
There was also a discussion about the proposed housing project at 1st and Clark. It was agreed that the project should at the very least reflect the scale of surrounding buildings.
The second half of the meeting was a presentation by Executive Director Cynthia Low of the Britannia Community Services Centre. She announced the public unveiling of the outside consultants’ Britannia Renewal Master Plan at an Open House this coming Saturday. Two of the major issues still not determined are the type and number — if any — of housing on the Britannia site (something on which the City is insistent), and whether there should be one or two ice rinks.
The previous Open House had presented three concepts for renewing the site. The consultants have taken the public comments on each concept and will present a single idea this weekend, including massing and phasing plans.
Cynthia also announced that the Britannia Board will present its own response to the Master Plan, noting that the Board is just one of the partners in the project — along with the City, the School Board, the Library Board, and the Parks Board — each of whim has their own agendas and priorities. The Board wants to make sure that whatever changes come to Britannia, the site’s historic and highly successful inclusive and welcoming atmosphere is not damaged by new additions.
This was a very useful meeting, full of interesting and usable information. It showed how well GWAC can be a forum for neighbourhood discussion, and a dispersal point for information. It was particularly good to see new members coming to their first meeting and participating actively.
The next in a long series of Open Houses regarding the future of the Britannia Community site takes places this Saturday, 14th April, between noon and 4pm in Gym D.
This is an important meeting as it will coincide with the public release of the draft Master Plan for this most vital part of our community, which currently includes two schools, a library, several gyms, a swimming pool, an ice rink, a seniors’ centre, offices, and green space.
If you attended the last Open House about a month or so ago, you may recall that three different concepts were presented for the future of the site. The consultants have apparently taken the public comments from that display and will be presenting a single concept design.
Withe the publication of the Master Plan we are moving quickly to the end of this phase of the re-development. Several major issues — what kind, if any, of housing should be on the site, whether there should be one or two ice rinks, for example — still have to be ironed out, but these will be settled soon, and the project will move on next to rezoning and final consultations with the City, the School Board, Parks Board, and Library Board.
It is hard to express just how important Britannia is to the Grandview Woodland neighbourhood and I urge you to take a few minutes on Saturday afternoon to review these plans and make sure your views are known.
This month’s Grandview Woodland Area Council (GWAC) meeting will take the form of a presentation on Britannia Renewal and a report on transportation in Grandview.
“Ms. Cynthia Low, Britannia Community Centre Executive Director, will be addressing the meeting, providing an update on the plans and taking questions from the audience.
You might also be wondering what is going on with transportation planning for the Grandview Woodland neighbourhood. Craig Ollenberger will be reporting out on that subject at the upcoming public meeting, too.”
The meeting is on Monday 9th April at 7:00pm in the Learning Resource Centre, under the Britannia Library. Everyone is welcome.
GWAC’s email newsletter also provides a useful response to: “What does GWAC do?”
“Quite simply, GWAC identifies issues which herald change for our community. We educate members about these issues, share our collective point of view with Mayor and Council, and encourage and assist members to take action. The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods, an umbrella organization of which GWAC is a member, will assist with matters which affect all residents of Vancouver, such as blanket changes to zoning regulations.”
On Monday evening I attended the GWAC meeting at which planner Andrew Pask gave a form of update on where we are with the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan implementation. It was a well-attended meeting and not at all raucous as some may have expected.
It is worth pointing first that Pask introduced himself as “the former planner for Grandview”. It was left unclear as to whether he has gone on to bigger and better things, and whether or not GW now no longer has a specific planner to talk to.
It was clear that Pask wanted to concentrate on how Planning is “saving” affordable rentals in the district. This is happening through the Pace of Change program under which only five applications for demolishing existing rentals will be accepted by Planning in the first three years after the Plan’s introduction (summer 2016 to summer 2019).. It was assumed that most of these would come from the RM zoned areas west of the Drive where the low-rise apartment buildings are concentrated.
Applications for this program to date include the assembly at 11th and Victoria (10 storeys, mixed condos/rentals), an assembly on Broadway just west of Commercial (10-storeys, mixed condos/rentals, public hearing spring 2018, and 825 Commercial (6 storeys with a pre-application open house tonight). Another possible contender for the Pace of Change program is a development assembly at 1535 Grant where developers are seeking 6-storeys (an early open house is scheduled for 15th November at Lord Nelson School, I believe).
Pask had no idea what would happen to this program at the end of the three years. He said Planning would make recommendations to Council who would then make a decision. It was noted this would be after the next municipal election.
Pask also touched on the Safeway site, the Boffo Tower, St Francis school, and the Britannia Renewal:
As for the Safeway site, he reviewed the arguments for and against the plaza on site, including Safeway’s strong reluctance. No application has yet been made, so we await further developments.
On the Boffo Tower, he agreed that Boffo threatened to shut down the project this spring, and made sure we remembered Planning had approved only 9 storeys but they had been over-ruled by Vision’s Council majority who agreed 12. However, he did not mention the now well-known internal tension between Boffo and the Kettle. He did say they were anticipating a formal application — at last! — within the next couple of months. It is worth noting that I didn’t see (or recognize) a single Boffo or Kettle person at the meeting.
With regard to St. Francis, he noted that Planners had agreed with many residents’ concerns over the redevelopment on Semlin, and it seems the Church is now going back to re-study a redevelopment of the current school site on Victoria.
On the question of housing on the proposed redeveloped Britannia site, Pask made it clear that Planning had little to do with this project at this stage, as most of the land was held by School Board and Parks Board. He did make a case for putting housing on the site but noted any decision is still a long way off, and that no specific number of housing units was being targeted. There was also discussion about “air parcels” (i.e. building on top pf other buildings) and Pask agreed that Council had left “air parcels” undefined. There was also a question of whether the Renewal Committee was using up-to-date demographics as they seemed to be ignoring the growing seniors’ population.
Questions from the audience covered much of the same ground but also included additional concerns:
One resident asked why, if the viaducts were coming down and Venables was being closed, why the Boffo Tower was even considered given the tower residents would be adding traffic. Pask said there was no question of Venables being closed, merely “calmed”.
It was noted by several people that GW remains green-space deficient when compared to other districts in the City and that the Plan didn’t seem to help. Pask claimed the Plan included “extensions” and “improvements” to existing facilities but there were no details, He also made a case for “hard surface” public areas (plazas, closed roads, etc), but the audience clearly didn’t buy that.
The issue of developing the industrial lands was discussed briefly. Pask notes that Vancouver needed to protect the small existing industrial base and that the Plan called for gradual densification of those areas with taller buildings rather than change of use.
The move of St Paul’s hospital to Strathcona, and its effects on our neighbourhood, was raised as was the problem of AirBnB‘s effect on rental availability, but Pask didn’t have specific information to bring on those topics. The issue of planning permissions and how long they took and the massive expense was discussed. Pask said they were aware of the problems and hoped to do better in the future.
All in all it is good to have a planner come and talk about these issues but did we really learn much? I’m not sure we did and, in the end, it just feels like another faux attempt at “consultation and public awareness”.
Yet again, another Elizabeth Murphy opinion piece in yesterday’s Vancouver Sun has brought me to the keyboard. Yet again, she uses an attack on the revamping of Vancouver’s Community Association management agreements (an attack with which I agree in general terms) to push her negative and unimaginative opinions about the future of Britannia, a site that is irrelevant to, and outside the boundaries of, the power-grabbing centralising dispute disturbing other parks and recreational facilities in the City.
She writes as if allowing certain housing options on Britannia will guarantee a loss of some of the precious little green space that Grandview currently enjoys. Quoting Darlene Mazari, she claims that adding housing to Britannia will make the management structure too “complex.” She declares that Britannia “is a fabulous model of combined services.” I take issue with each of these points.
When it was constructed in the 1970s, there is is little argument that Britannia CCS was a progressive move forward in the delivery of services to Grandview. However, designed and constructed using the then-chic Pattern Language style it has long been recognised that Britannia is no longer fit for purpose; its buildings, working spaces, and interior connections form a barrier to the type of programming that Britannia wants to deliver to its 21st century clientele. I am certain that this failure was what drove the original impetus for a Britannia renewal in the first place; because it was no longer “a fabulous model.”
Created outside the standard model of Vancouver Community Associations, the management of the Britannia space has always been complex. It is governed by agreements between the Vancouver School Board, Vancouver Parks Board, and the Vancouver Library Board, and has a Board elected from the community. Although this governance structure has presented challenges over the Brit’s existence, the form has proven to be both durable and workable. Adding a housing component will certainly expand the complexity but to believe this will collapse the governance model is an insult to the professionals (and residents) who will make it work.
The housing options I have discussed in previous posts assume that spaces/buildings can be multi-functional: Housing options can be developed above other required Brit facilities; above gyms, above the library, above programming spaces. In fact, I am a strong believer that the future of a land-poor Vancouver will not look well on us if we restrict ourselves to single-use properties in such developments. Given the number of buildings required at Britannia, I am certain we can place all the housing we want on site without the loss of any green space. Imagination and creativity can allow us to have our cake and eat it, too.
As regular readers will have noticed, I have now come to the conclusion that housing on the Brit site is both required and desired. However, I need to stress once again the three inviolable principles for this: all housing on site must be government run for low income residents; all present green space is to be retailed; and a maximum height of four storeys must be maintained.
I know that even with these caveats, there will be lots of opposition from my heritage and development-activism colleagues, and I am sure I have already discouraged a number of them with my earlier ideas for densifying Grandview. However, I am equally aware that the affordable housing crisis is genuine and needs to be faced directly with urgency and imagination. I also know that a large number of individuals and groups within Grandview support the idea of on-site housing, including perhaps a majority of the Brit Planning & Development committee, I hope my ideas can be used as an input to a final conclusion.
Under doctor’s orders, I was unable to make either of last week’s Britannia meetings and I apologise if this post has fallen behind the times.
Elizabeth Murphy has written another of her pieces in the Vancouver Sun. On this occasion, she is noting with horror the possibility of using public spaces, such as parks, to build housing in Vancouver.
I agree with many of the points she is making, including her thesis that the driving dynamic behind this movement is the desire to centralize, taking control from the locally based community centre associations, that was pushed forward so aggressively when Penny Ballem was City Manager. I also agree with her praise for new amenities that have been developed to include housing, such as the Strathcona and Mount Pleasant libraries.
However, when it comes to the redevelopment of Britannia, she has the history wrong and draws inaccurate conclusions from that faulty reading. She blithely records that, during the development of the Britannia site in the 1970s that “housing was moved off the site.” In fact, 77 houses were expropriated and demolished for the Community Center, many with barely grudging assent from the owners as recorded in Clare Shepansky’s definitive history of the removals. To this must be added 40 or 50 more that were torn down in the original building of Britannia School and the subsequent expansions in the 1950s primarily for playing fields.
It is entirely wrong to suggest, therefore, that the Britannia site has historically been a public asset. It was for many decades a thriving residential neighbourhood. The community could make a good and valid argument that we deserve to recover some of the housing that was lost to us in the 1970s, especially today when the need for affordable housing in Grandview is becoming acute.
It would seem to me that at this early stage where plans are not yet drawn up that we could take cues from the developments cited earlier in Strathcona and Mount Pleasant and possibly have the best of both worlds. The current green space could be preserved while a new library, gyms, pool, and schools could be designed with housing above (keeping, of course, to a maximum four-storey height). Let’s get creative!
I have not yet made up my mind whether I support the notion of housing as part of Britannia’s necessary and welcome redevelopment, but an inaccurate and revisionist history does a disservice to the people of Grandview and adds nothing to the debate.
The Britannia Renewal project is moving ahead rapidly with a regular schedule of meetings and workshops. The next three are the following:
…in the Britannia Renewal Speakers’ Series will be Ouri Scott, architect, and David Ramslie, sustainability planner. Their topic will be Learning and Community Growth and will take place on
Thursday May 4th, 7:00pm at Britannia High School Auditorium
“I think it’s really about an approach to the environment. Not talking about the technical sense of the environment, but the sense of place. Honouring the past of that place, thinking about who and what came before, from people, trees and animals. And making references to the past and to cultural heritage.” – Ouri Scott
Everyone is welcome!
Last night I attended the latest in the Britannia Renewal Speakers’ Series. This was a presentation on the unique role of the public library in building community given by Asa Kachan, CEO of the Halifax Library system. There were perhaps just three dozen in the audience. She was an excellent speaker and deserved more.
Halifax has recently opened a new Central Library. It was this space — and the process by which it was designed — that was the central feature of the presentation. The previous building, a 1950s slab, was no longer relevant or attractive to the current generation; the new building is entirely different. The concepts and design ideas were developed during an active and extended community engagement phase, primarily using World Cafe methods.
As a meaningful symbol of the engagement of the local community, the library handed out 400 pairs of scissors to residents to cut the ribbon in opening day.
Ms. Kachan repeated often that a modern library needs to be both “purposeful and surprising;” that the purpose of libraries and other public spaces is to “change the quality of people’s lives.” The Halifax Library has been designed to be open and participatory, with flexible spaces that many groups and individuals can self-curate. As she stressed, if you build good spaces, people will use them imaginatively.
The speaker also emphasised that the community engagement process does not end with the construction project. The same importance of public input continues into ongoing operations and programming.
It was an inspiring presentation in which she stressed that the library is for the people not the librarians, giving examples of how a library can make a significant difference to an individual. She noted that Halifax is a welcoming open library for the homeless and others without other access to technology. There is a new encouragement to include food with library activities and to make the library part of a food security network.
Throughout Ms. Kachan’s presentation — and especially in the Q&A within which a wide range of library-use topics were discussed — I got the sense that she would like to add even more of the social services and community components that already form part of the Britannia continuum. In turn, Halifax’s experience is one we should keep closely in mind as we develop the Britannia library as part of the renewed Centre.
There are two meetings of interest at Britannia this coming week.
On Tuesday 18th April at 7:00pm in the Info Centre Boardroom, there is the regular monthly meeting of the team planning the Britannia Renewal Project. the agenda this month includes a discussion on housing, a report on the lease negotiations, an update on the speakers’ series, and other items of interest. All are welcome.
On Thursday 20th April, at 7:00pm in the Britannia Library, there will be a discussion with Asa Kachan, Chief Librarian of Halifax Public Library. The topic will be “Learning and Community Growth” and again, everyone is welcome.
This Thursday would also have been the regular monthly meeting of the Grandview Heritage Group, but we believe the Library discussion to be of such interest that GHG has canceled this month’s meeting and will meet again in May.