www.noparkgatehighrise.net
Back to issues truly North Vancouver.
The issue of to build or not to build the 11 Storey Parkgate Hi-Rise, A.K.A. '3600 Block Mount Seymour Parkway OCP Amendment and Rezoning' has come and gone via a public hearing on Tuesday, June 22.
The signatures of some 977 people 'against' the project some of which I canvassed for, were virtually all Parkgate residents, have now been presented to DNV Council.
In comparison, as of 2:30pm Jun 22nd upon review of the DNV 'public file' on this controversial project, there were only 90 signatures 'for' it; and many of those were from non-DNV voters and taxpayers.
The Public hearing was held Jun 22nd and, with a packed speakers list, went very late into the evening - actually until about 12:40 am (5 1/2 hours).
The developer literally stacked the meeting with two busloads of supporters - the buses were in the DNV parking lot - including many seniors from its Summerhill Tower. In fact, most of the speakers on June 22nd in 'support' of the developer do not live or vote in the DNV.
One can only hope that Council has the good-sense to properly balance the real interests of all of the 'outsiders' who spoke as PAG supporters with the express wishes of almost 1000 local residents who have signed petitions and written letters, as well as the fact that the SLP does not allow for Hi-Rises.
Mayor Walton indicated that the DNV Council decision could be as early as July 5th.
59 opinions/comments:
I find your anti-seniors sentiment troubling John.
You would discriminate against seniors speaking at a public hearing because of how they took a bus to get there? How else do 80 year olds get to public hearings?
You would treat them as second class citizens because they are proud of where they live and want to share it with others?
You look down on them because they are City residents? Many not by choice, but because the District didn't have those options available?
A public hearing is a place that is free from your brand of intolerance, John.
Do you feel it is inappropriate when Unions bus people to protests John?
John you said that you canvassed for the opposition? Don't you live 10kms away in Lynn Valley?
Wouldn't you consider that active interference by an outside party? What did the Summerhill people do differently?
I'm curious: Aside from the usual NIMBY complaints, what is the issue with the building?
We could use some lower-cost housing options in the Distict. Would this not provide such a thing?
Heather, unless you consider $3500 and up "lower cost", yes, it would be fine, except the location, and except for the height and the FSR and the setback from the Parkway, and on and on.
Those who oppose the tower are not anti-senior. That is a red herring and is in the same league as the question "Are you still beating your wife". This is a great project in the wrong location. I fear for the seniors' safety in crossing the street with their walkers and canes. And despite Council's protestations to the contrary, I fear that it sets a precedent for another developer to come along and point to PA3, as PA3 has done to Roche Point Tower and say, "See, it's compatible with that building."
I would call many of the developer's claims of benefit to the shopping centre another red herring. Seniors will not be dropping loads of cash at Parkgate: I doubt very much that they will be visiting the library, or Safeway, as all their meals are included. They probably won't buy a pizza or a sub, and they are probably past the point where they will rent a movie. I DO think they will patronize the pharmacy and perhaps the optometrist, the liquor store and the credit union.
Take the pathos away from the issue of housing seniors. There was an excellent point raised at the public hearing, and that was, might the property be put to better use by building the 25 townhomes that were considered for the site? Those homes might house lots of children to help keep our schools open. Those townhomes would have generated less traffic than is contemplated by this development, and the residents would have spent far more at Parkgate businesses.
A few seniors at the public meeting spoke about how much they enjoy living at Summerhill, and nobody has ever questioned that. Pacific Arbour is obviously a caring landlord to their clients. But they have been dropping obscene amounts of money in Seymour in an attempt to curry favour with local residents.
It's obviously a very profitable business. And if this project is turned down, which it should be, I would bet my father's knickers that another developer will come along with a project that offers two levels of care rather than the one that PA offers, in a safer location, and the community will embrace it in a heartbeat.
Increased traffic is a red herring. Traffic studies show that less than 1/3 of the residents of these facilities drive. In facilities that I've been involved in, it is actually less than that. The traffic is generated by staff and visitors. I suspect that twenty five townhouses with families living in them would generate much more traffic than this facility ever would.
If you think the seniors will sit in their rooms and not participate in the community and the services it offers, you're mistaken. Go to any shopping district with seniors housing in close proximity, sit and watch who is using the amenities. These are active seniors, not the frail and more sedentary souls you will see in resident care facilities.
Where would you all like your senior citizens to live. Judging from people like John and the poster above, it isn't in their own community.
Team- let the politicians do what they do best, take vacations paid by developers to china and let the same band of hoodlums build buildings and make great sums of money.
For the uninitiated, it costs approximately 210 per square foots to build a concrete building, height does not really come into the equations.
Developers will sell this building for approximately 400- 500 per same square foot, so average 800 square foot condo at 350 per square foot equals 192000 thousand yse that is correct math on each unit sold.
simplistic, but you can see where the developers have a huge interest in making sure the politicians vote the RIGHT way on development projects, 12 units a floor 12 stories, 144 x 192 = 27 million dollars profit.
and that my friends equals a lot of trips to china or fantasy gardens, oh by the way i was just storing the bag containing 78 thousand dollars in my safe for a friend.
Heather it's not that complicated when you simplify it to actual 'people' - which these long winded posts rarely address. If you want seniors who need medical support to stay in their community - you need places like theses. Is government going to build them....not so far. So, yes you need the big bad developers to do so. I have family that may need these amenities in the next few years so I support and wrote council saying so. And yes I live in the community.
Vincent Santacroce
"Take the pathos away from the issue of housing seniors. There was an excellent point raised at the public hearing, and that was, might the property be put to better use by building the 25 townhomes that were considered for the site? Those homes might house lots of children to help keep our schools open. Those townhomes would have generated less traffic than is contemplated by this development, and the residents would have spent far more at Parkgate businesses."
Now that statement is hilarious! If council did propose just that, you would have the NIMBYers screaming just as loudly against this density. Far too much hyprocacy on that side of the density issue. Talk about your red herring.
The real issue here is community driven planning vs. developer driven planning. I side with community driven planning. This 'OCP Amendment and Re-zoning' calls for a high-rise which does not comply with the LAP. As has been said, the community would embrace a seniors development or any that fit the LAP , "in a heart-beat". This development could set a precedent for other developers who want the same, i.e.: Apex and Mt. Seymour Parkway site currently sitting idle. This is clearly not want the LAP sets out as directed by local area residents. This is not lower-cost housing but, simply more market housing of which there is no shortage in North Vancouver.
I am District of North Vancouver resident and taxpayer and I am concerned with precedents being set throughout the entire DNV. All neighbourhoods need to fight for each other - not just their own. I would hope that if the high-rise issue rears it's ugly head again in Lynn Valley that Seymour or Edgemont or other neighbourhoods in the DNV might support that fight.
So John, where would have seniors live, if not close to the amenities they need?
John
I look to our council to listen to the community (and the SCA has recognized that the community is split on this issue) and do what it believes is best for the community. I don`t believe every development decision needs to be decided on who shouts the loudest.
I believe its unfair to trivialize this project as `market housing` when it clearly provides a currently unmet need in our community. Maybe where you live you have this amenity but we don`t.
Vincent Santacroce
Meet the "unmet need" with a 4 storey building with proper setbacks instead of letting a developer's greed overwhelm the wishes of the community.
Hold a referendum during the next election if you claim the community supports this development.
Vincent,
Who shouts the loudest? Split? 90 vs. 977?
A need in the community? By whom's research? PAG's? The SCA has spoken against this development.
Good to see you commenting here.
John
Unmet? If there are no places for seniors, then what do you call the Atrium on Parkgate and at least two Lions manors and the Kiwanis care facility in Seymour? I would like to see facilities similar to these, but with the added benefit of assisted living.
This is pricy accommodation no matter how you slice it and attainable by only 146 or so. It starts at $3500 for one resident and you can add around $700 if one is lucky enough to have a living spouse who wants to live with them, of course.
Who's interests are really being served here? Seniors or a developer who wants a chunk of their children's inheritance?
My father is 87 and we found a wonderful caregiver to live with him for $800 a month and he stays in the home he's lived in for more than 40 years. She takes him for drives, to the doctor, spends time with him, and escorts him wherever he wants to go. Isn't that a better option? Even my mother wouldn't have had that much patience.
How could council complain about the density that was approved in the SLP before PA3 came along and had the audacity to suggest a 16-storey high rise. I overhead someone speaking to a PA3 personand one of the public meetings. They asked what would happen if the permit was declined, and if they needed someone in their corner to find another site, and the answer was "We're big boys, we understand the risks." Indeed.
Give your head a shake.
Vincent,
No one is trivializing this as market housing. By the developer's own description, it IS market housing for seniors with deep pockets.
I think we need something that is more inclusive and won't force seniors to move up and out, when the time comes.
Vincent, did you actually believe that your family would get medical support if they moved into PA3's proposed building on this site? WRONG - unless of course they outsourced it, which is what they could also do if they had a live-in caregiver! And may I ask, if they need that sort of care are they really going to benefit much from the social aspects of living in this sort of development?
Whats funny to me on this is that there seems to be a lot of people that think that because a senior has deep pockets and is willing to pay thier own way we should not give it to them. But if they are in need of help with housing and need to be given support by the Lions or Kiwanis then its ok to build what ever they ask. To me there is something very wrong with this picture.
Even funnier is the suggestion that the project is all wrong because if a senior living in the proposed building ends up needing a whole lot of medical attention in the future they will have to move out of the building. Heres a news flash folks. The seniors who want this type of housing options are well aware they at some point may have to move. They can think for themselves and it is their choose to decide to move into a new home they are comfortable in now and deal with what comes in the future rather than being forced into a new home were everyone around them is failing badly and they have to live with the constant reminder that their time is coming. Many seniors stay in homes that are much to large for them far longer than they should because they do not wish to go into a home which is more of a long term care home.
Even funnier is the suggest that seniors in need of assistance should just hire someone to come to the home they are already in. Can't help but wonder how many of the folks suggesting this have ever really had to try and do that? Yes a few say they have and if they have been able to get good people I would suggest they are the lucky ones. Having had to deal with less than great help for my own family for a number of years I can tell you its not as easy as it sounds. Not to mention when one adds up the yearly costs of maintaining the home, taxes and the cost of the gardner and the house cleaner and other needed help etc etc the cost is pretty well a push as to what is being asked monthly for this project. The rent being asked is the real world fair price.
$800 per month for live in care? What are this persons qualifications and is this person in the country legally? That isn't even a minimum wage salary.
It is what you call the "domino theory."
If this greedy developer is approved, more will apply and be approved by our pro-development council, who are all well-heeled and do not live in high-density areas. Of course not!
WQ
It doesn't matter someone's "private need", the development is 4 times too large and against the wishes of the citizens.
$800 a month gets us a live-in caregiver who lives there for free, and has a part-time job outside the home. It's real and it's working and our father is well looked after, thank you very much. He also qualifies for several hours of help from the health authority to augment the care we pay for.
Update: The vote is on July 12th.
I signed the anti-tower petition.
But if the cost of living in such a tower, even if it was located where they want to locate it was within the reach of "non-wealthy" seniors, I would not have signed the petition.
I do not have a problem with A tower.
I do have a problem with an ELITE tower....
Where do you get the idea that it's an elite tower? Considering the services and amenities being provided, I think the asking price is reasonable.
Reasonable? Do you call a minimum of "$3500 a month for 410 sq. ft. studio reasonable? Because that's what is charged for a studio at the (developer's) existing Summerhill Property. This reasonableness will apply to the Parkgate Tower as well.
The Parkgate High-Rise will not provide nursing care, just market rental 'independent living'.
I suppose you're one of those who thinks everything should be handed to them for free. Government will only subsidize you so much before the tax payer begins to balk. The developer is providing a service. A service for which there is a market at a price that people are willing to pay. Who are you to decide what amount is too much? This isn't tax payer funded housing, so it can charge what the market will bear. It's call a free market. If you don't like it, you can choose subsidized seniors housing.
There are those who are offended at the cost of living in a Pacific Arbour facility. Then there are those who are offended at the notion of building this tower on the proposed site. Then there are those who are offended by the thought of a tower anywhere in Seymour. Whatever their reasons, people are entitled to their opinions, whether they like it or not. I think that it is Seymour residents whose opinions should carry the most weight, and it would seem that more are opposed than for. What burns me is people from outside the area telling Seymour residents that this tower is good for them when they don't have to live with the consequences of it going up in their neighbourhood. And what really ticked me off was that the Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to DNV supporting it. Who do you suppose asked them to write it, hmmm?
So, does that mean that only councilors who live in Seymour should be allowed to vote on the application?
What a stupid remark Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:41:00 PM.
Anyone elected to Council has the mandated responsibility--and they should have the skill--to decide on issues that affect residents throughout the District, regardless of where they live. Of the two who live in Seymour, of course neither signed the petition. This has nothing to do with where they live and everything to do with making a tough decision, and I really hope they do the right thing (and vote no).
www.noparkgatehighrise.net
Any guesses on who will vote which way?
Seymour - Mike Little
Seymour - Doug Mckay-dunn
Inter-River - Lisa Muri
Lower Lynn - Roger Bassam
Upper Lynn - Robin Hicks
Pemberton Heights - Alan Nixon
Upper Capilano - Richard Walton
The editorial in the Snooze last weekend came out against breaking the Seymour Local Plan, by such a radical amount. I hope Councillors have seen this and taken it to heart.
This is not about Seymour - it is about building something in a neighbourhood that the majority of local residents don't want. It could happen in Norgate, Upper Cap, Lynn Valley or Edgemont.
Given the huge number of signatures collected, if Council goes ahead and approves it, they should watch their backs in 2011....1000 people NOT voting for someone could change the outcome of the election.
I've already pulled my support for Thornthwaite because of her "to hell with my constituents, I'm voting the party line" stance on the HST (I'm SO disappointed with her on this!).
May as well see how the counselors do and pull support for them as well if they back this project (in it's current form).
NIMBYism and B.C.s misguided populists all in one topic. How delightful.
You dolt! It is not NIMBY-ism to want the terms of a local plan to be upheld. That's what they're for - it's a promise from the local government to the people who developed it and who continue to live there.
I don't know where you live, but how would you feel if a developer bought up the houses next to you and wanted to put in an amusement park because there were lots of kids in your neighbourhood who would like to be entertained there and there wasn't much else in the area for them to do? The Developer has made a good case for building it there, and will generate mega tax dollars for the District. It's outside the LAP but I have three kids who would just love to go there for the afternoon. So I think it's a great idea and you should accept it.
Tell me how you'd feel about that, you idiot.
This is seniors housing, not an amusement park. Try to stick within the realm of reality. The LAP is not a static document. This is evidenced through these two pertinent paragraphs:
"Housing: While maintaining the predominantly single family character of Seymour, provide a diversity of housing choices to meet the community‘s needs as they change.
Community Services: Provide a level of community services in Seymour that supports the community‘s needs, is equitable and keeps pace with growth and change."
High rises are a sustainable form of housing, place less burden on infrastructure and the environment, etc. It is an efficient form of housing that makes a lot of sense, if you care to remove the blinders and look at it objectively. If you're serious about protecting your environment, you'd give high rise development a serious look. The alternatives are sprawl into undeveloped land, or unsustainable, low density alternatives. The latter may make you feel better, but in reality do little to reaching a goal of fiscal and environmental sustainability within the community.
Whatever you say, the community, by a wide majority, doesn't want a highrise ON THIS SITE. Period.
The 900 people who signed the petition don't, but do they truly represent the whole community or are they just a very vocal special interest group?
This is ELITE seniors housing! $3500/month is 40% more than I'm paying for a 2500 sq ft house!
With rents like this, the development is designed to EXCLUDE those that can not afford it. Most seniors in the Seymour area are not wealthy, and simply want to be near their families. This development does not facilitate that and unless it does, it has no business being here.
Who are you to say what's affordable to people? Have you bothered to look at what is included in that monthly charge? Can you get those same amenities and services for the rent you are paying? I doubt it. Only a seriously uninformed person would make this a class issue.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:59:00 PM
Yes, the 900+ people are a special interest group--they live in Seymour. And what anyone else in the District thinks is almost irrelevant because it's not going up in their community. By the developer's own words, they want to build it for the benefit of Seymour residents, not Lynn Valley or Capilano - SEYMOUR - and the special interest group that you refer to somewhat snidely are residents of the Seymour area who have some serious concerns about the proposed building and the site on which Pacific Arbor wants to build it.
Tell us where you live and I'll write a letter to Council suggesting that they build it beside you.
John why are you deleting posts?
" The developer is providing a service. A service for which there is a market at a price that people are willing to pay. Who are you to decide what amount is too much?"
The developer is taking something from the public when they refuse to build with the OCP or the wishes of the community. They can charge all they want to whoever but they can't build whatever they want.
Besides the developers are the ones who played a game by promoting this as a service to seniors not a business, it's the lie they used and the fact that's it's an elite building is hanging them now.
It's a service being provided to seniors who want it and are prepared to pay for it. What's wrong with that? Would you prefer it be payed for with your tax dollars? It is not elite! Research seniors facilities with equal amenities and services and see what they charge. I don't think you know of what you speak. Become informed and stop spewing such obviously uninformed rubbish.
2:52 PM,
The 'comments' I deleted were questionably racist and/or did not contribute construtively to the discussion in my opinion.
In the first place I'm not convinced there should have been a public hearing. Council voted unanomously for the hearing in the 'name of democracy' and opened this door that should have remained closed. The community has already spoken and said, no high-rises.
Now if the community wants to re-open this issue then so be it but, until then and at this point we shouldn't even be having this discussion.
P.S.
A very Happy Canada day to everyone.
"It's a service being provided to seniors who want it and are prepared to pay for it. What's wrong with that? Would you prefer it be payed for with your tax dollars?"
STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!
They can pay their own dollars for a 4 story building with proper setbacks that meets the rules of the OCP.
What is missing from this discussion is the fact that a dangerous precedent will be set. Legal actions have been achieved in other municipalities, whereby filthy rich developers have sued and won because they have apparently been treated differently than previous development applicators.
One Tower will give rise to another.
WQ
What is the point of hundreds of people spending thousands of hours of volunteer work putting together a "vision" for their community if the "carrot" of "seniors" can be used to instantly (well not actually instantly, we DNV taxpayers pay for these public hearings) change the entire agenda at the cost of our concern for seniors as opposed to the cost of the 1000s of taxpayers who live in Seymour now. It is their community.
I was at the public hearing and it appears to me that at least 50/50 seniors spoke for and against this project. That says it all.
P.S. I left before it was over and watched the public hearing on my computer. If it went to after midnight, as I am told, I only saw up until 3 hours 17 minutes after 7 PM. I would really like to see the rest of this meeting. It was chopped off in the middle of a speaker. I wonder what happened after that.
P.S. I have a brand new excellent computer
Why do people think the North Van seniors get some kind of cut in the line? The place will be full of people like an old Scottish grandma from Hong Kong and her neighbors.
10:42,
The tape ran out at the public hearing about 11:45 PM. The meeting went another hour. The minutes should be available for the last hour on the DNV website by now.
Interesting - my last comment on the subject disappeared.
Basically the Councillors all talked motherhood points about seniors and their parents.
To his credit, Mackay-Dunn spoke at length about what he saw as the 3 main points raised against the project and refuted each in turn prior to a 7-0 vote after an hour or so of discussion.
I attended the public hearing on July 12th. when at least two councillors concurred that this project was very divisive in the Seymour Community. Where is the data supporting this divisiveness? It's true there were similar amounts of people at the hearing 'in favour' and 'not in favour' but, many of those 'in favour' were bussed from the City of North Vancouver to the hearing by the developer, Pacific Arbour. Those 'not in favour' mostly from the Seymour area, made their own way.
Approximately 50 people did sign an 'in favour' petition but, there were almost 1,000 that signed a 'not in favour' petition whom were mostly from the Seymour area. I can tell you as a canvasser of the 'not in favour' petition, that there was no "fear-mongering" on this project.
The Seymour high-rise controversy was never about not providing senior citizens with accommodation; It was about a high-rise proposal that was specifically against the Seymour Local Plan that restricts high-rises. Seymour residents would have accepted in a heart beat a seniors development proposal for 3 or 4 storeys.
We are really talking about developer driven planning vs. community driven planning.
Almost 1,000 Seymour resident voters say 'please don't do it', and Mayor and Council go and do it anyway. Not much to say, is there?
You know, out of all the people who spoke 'against' the high-rise I remember the man who feared that his tomatoes will no longer grow because he will be in the shadow of the 11 storey building. He also suggested he might have a beer for anyone on council who might like to come by and discuss the development. This is what council didn't do; they didn't really consult with the community of Seymour on this. I suspect council had already decided to go ahead with this high rise before the hearing. The hearing was just 'process' to make it look like due diligence.
Allowing the developer to bus in the 'in favour' folks from a CNV PAG seniors complex to the hearing was simply an outrage.
Selling the land to the developer for half the price they could get also another outrage.
There's many good people in Seymour people who are really steamed about this high rise.
Council hasn't heard the last of this.
The next major controversy when Council comes back will be the old Lynn Valley Library site which is being demolished within the next month.
I am not one of those who favors social housing for the site as the District - thanks mostly to the delays of the Bell era - procrastinated as the cost spiralled out of sight.
Bottom line is that at this point the taxpayer really needs to get top dollar from this site though the neighborhood is not favoring a high rise here.
Bosa has no immediate intent to re-develop the Lynn Valley Mall site and given the enclosed nature of the old Library site that restricts how it can be used.
Council is going to need a lot of creativity on this one but at the same time needs to get a good dollar for the site.
Lynn Valley has done more than its share of providing rental housing, sub-market housing and other social projects so I don't think the assumption should be made that this will be the fate of the site.
It isn't NIMBY-ism when we're talking about a neighborhood that has done far more than any other neighborhood in making room for special-purpose housing.
Lyle,
So do you think they will promote another market housing development for this site under the guise of a seniors housing accomodation?
Not to toot my own horn but, I have written two posts here on this topic; One on Nov. 12, 2007 and Jan. 13,2009.
Post a Comment