TALK | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

HEIGHT/DENSITY

Leading question: "How tall is too tall for buildings on this site?

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 16 By: jamschen removed by moderator - comment contained a personal attack. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 15 Jan 2011 20 By: Jimmer The Arbutus-Ridge, Kerrisdale, Shaughnessy (ARKS) Vision is a Vancouver City Council approved Vision 15 0 On: 17 Jan 2011 developed through an extensive consultation process (CityPlan) with the neighbourhood. The Vision recognizes that increased density along arterial streets such as Granville is supported. The neighbourhood did NOT support apartments 6-stories or greater. 4-story apartments had mixed support. There are two ARKS-compliant proposals which have buildings at a maximum 4-stories. The developer is proposing a development which has building heights greater than 4-stories which is contrary to the ARKS Vision developed by the neighbourhood. 24 By: Ellbee I think there are ways to achieve density without having super tall towers - I think you need to look at 5 4 On: 19 Jan 2011 options that balance both needs. I support increased density on the west side (and I say this as a west side resident, though not in this neighbourhood - I live in South Granville, where there's some pretty brutal towers built in the 60s/70s, alonside lovely two-storey walk ups - don't want to see that kind of dog's breakfast at Shannon Mews, either). If it's going to be done, it has to be done right.

Having said that, we can't build out in Vancouver anymore, so we need to build up (or at least, in more creative ways) to increase density. The west side has got away with NIMBY for long enough, and needs to share more of the load for increased density in Vancouver. That' doesn't mean there should be Yaletown- like towers in the neighbourhood. More than four stories? Maybe. I think there's room for some compromise here. For what it's worth. 26 By: archwerks Maximum is 4 to 6 storeys (70' limit) depending on other density issues, 5 0 On: 19 Jan 2011 No sheer walls more than 30' in height. 100 ' length, Articulate & setback features, Materials to reflect those of the original mansion, Details & features to reflect (not neccessarily copy) those on the mansion. 27 By: local_resident This area is primarily a single-family zone, the neighbourhood ARKS Vision document has recorded the 7 0 On: 19 Jan 2011 general sentiments of what and how the residents would like to see their neighbourhood change and grow. Density on arterials have been approved but further studies and planning are needed to articulate how proposed developments will enhance, strengthen and improve the arterials along with respecting the positive aspects of the existing neighbourhood. Each arterial is unique and run through many diverse neighbourhoods in order to reflect this distinctive condition, more thought and treatment is required as

HEIGHT/DENSITY 1 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE they transform.

Would like to see a comprehensive study/plan for arterials with community input rather than to assess individual proposals in isolation. A master plan will create a cohesive urban fabric to strengthen our communities; on the other hand spot rezoning of projects currently being experienced may not be benefitial to community and city growth. Community anxiety would be reduce if we know how much (density - area & number of new residents) and how high (building height) is to be expected and the fact these issues have been planned and established through public consultation with local residents.

14-storey buildings are too high for this particular site, perhaps something lower (6-8 storey) away from the edge of this site is more appropriate. Also, consider lower 3-4 storey buildings along the edges would respect the single-family houses directly across 57th Ave. and Adera St. 32 By: teresa Based on the desires and ideas of local residents, the ARKS vision was created and set broad directions for 9 0 On: 25 Jan 2011 the future of the community in 2005. Last year the City Council allowed a plan of rezoning of the Shannon Mews not to follow the guidelines set by the Vision. The reason for allowing the proposal of building high-rise and great increase in density is that the Shannon Mews is a large lot. It is unacceptable! The lot is not isolated from the neighbourhood. The basic character of ARKS should be respected and retained. The Vision should apply to any development in the neighbourhood despite of its size. The City Council seems to challenge the endurance and harmony of the neighbourhood. 117 By: archwerks It's clear there is NO vision from this city council. 1 0 On: 14 Feb 2011 In response to: 32 33 By: Cathy JMN To go from 162 to 891 units is drastic. We were a residential neighborhood. Shame on City Hall for 6 0 On: 27 Jan 2011 considering this proposal. 92 By: Lawson1945 It is not drastic at all, the land acerage is large enough to handle this project if the roads are designed 0 4 On: 04 Feb 2011 properly, Langara Gardens just down the road is working fine, this is pure greed on your part and miss the In response to: 33 big picture that is needed in Vancouver. 109 By: Glenn L Langara Gardens is not the same. Please look at the surrounding neighbourhood and you will see that 2 0 On: 06 Feb 2011 there are not residential homes as close to the apartments as proposed for Shannon Mews. In response to: 92 Putting the above aside the smaller buildings in Langara Gardens would be fine for Shannon Mews. 106 By: Ovaltine88 Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 06 Feb 2011 In response to: 33

HEIGHT/DENSITY 2 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 36 By: Glenn L what I really like about the people in the neighbourhood is that majority agree that Wall has the right to 5 0 On: 28 Jan 2011 redevelop, this is not a case of NIMBY. What the neighbourhood does not like it is the size and the impact the development will have on the neighbourhood. 14 stories is too tall. The picture shown above does not show that across the road on all corners are small single residence homes. The visual impact for the nearby homes, the traffic impact is too great and out right wrong for what is there. A change is good but this change is too much for what we have. I live on 57th and I believe max 5 stories is reasonable. Creative architecture can get to at least double density, which is a lot, but acceptable. A tower on this corner is wrong. When I look at the developments around Oakridge they are all 4- 5 stories and function nicely with the existing residences. Please reconsider the height on this development. I am sure the developer, the mayor or anyone else who may support this would not like a 14 story building built next to their home. 107 By: Ovaltine88 3-4 stories, kinda like what choices market is doing would be optimal. Of course peter wall has the right to 1 0 On: 06 Feb 2011 develop, but it is neighbors responsibility to lobby the city planners to keep those greedy corporation's In response to: 36 profit margin down. We are also saving our land from being extracted for cash. 38 By: local Every neighbourhood needs to consider growth and change. Not just the run down neighbourhoods. 1 1 On: 28 Jan 2011 From the Georgia Straight:

John Brimacombe, with the Shannon Mews Neighbours’ Association, told the Straight it’s hard to find any area residents who support the proposal.

“The place that’s right for redevelopment is a place where the neighbourhood is declining, the houses are [torn] down,” said Brimacombe, a retired high-school teacher who has lived near the Shannon Mews site for around 25 years. “You might as well redevelop and make something nicer. Not here.”

From the Province:

John Brimacombe of the Shannon Mews Neighbours’ Association said Tuesday “the neighbours are fairly upset.

“We’re not NIMBY particularly,” said Brimacombe. 40 By: JohnB This out of context set of quotes seems to indicate SMNA is against redevelopment of any form. 2 0 On: 29 Jan 2011 Considering how the site has been allowed to decline over the last 40 year under the ownership of the In response to: 38 Wall corporation, redevelopment seems to now be the only viable option. SMNA recognizes some densification is inevitable, but if the population increase on that site is so great it destroys the

HEIGHT/DENSITY 3 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE surrounding neighbourhood by overloading infrastructure such as roads and community services, it will have a serious net negative impact. One such impact (but not the only one) is traffic. The traffic study posted by the developer is so flawed that it scarcely deserves comment. However, consider this - how do you get 1000 cars in and out of the site in the main proposal through only 2 entrances onto 57th, one in and one out? No other entrances can be built because of heritage and other contraints. The proposed demographic in all schemes will be unlikely to cycle to work, at least not in significant numbers. 44 By: archwerks To Local : 1 0 On: 30 Jan 2011 In response to: 38 Do Not quote out of context.

The City of Vancouver has spent our tax dollars forming the ARKS Vision, now comes Wall Finacial Corp. who wants to re write the rules! 39 By: JohnB I think the neighbours could live with a maximum density increase of double - ie about 1.2 fsr max from 6 1 On: 29 Jan 2011 the current .619. Anything greater will overload the traffic and community infrastructures. Because density ultimately controls heights, that densification could be achieved primarily in 4 storeys as in ARKS vision 2. The topography is not flat, and if the densification above ARKS vision 2 is needed for financial viability (as the developer claims) there are spots within the interior site that do not visually impact the neighbours and could have taller structures. The corner of 57th and Granville is the worst location for a tall structure because it's on a rise and visually impacts everybody to the south, including visitor's first impression coming in from the airport. Note that architect drawing above is not the actual design but a sample from a software program. It's misleading in scale because several floors appear to be 1. Take a look at 57th and Cambie for an idea of the actual building heights, then put them on a ridge overlooking Marpole. 43 By: Bob The public outcry is not about development itself, but development without serious consideration to the 8 0 On: 29 Jan 2011 surrounding neighborhood. Densification is one thing but it doesn't have to be expensive high rise buildings. There will be little opposition to low rise buildings or townhouses that are unobtrusive and harmonious to the surroundings. Developers want to optimize their profits by going high. That is the problem here and it is happening all over the city.

The city wants to densify along the arterial roads, but this development extends into 2 residential streets because of its size. It should be given a high density of 1.0 (just like the new development that is starting on Granville and 52nd), for 1/3 of its area that fronts on Granville street. The other 2/3 should remain with the residential density of 0.60 FSR since they are on 2 residential streets, Churchill and Adera.

HEIGHT/DENSITY 4 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 46 By: 59er Will the site be redeveloped? Yes. 9 0 On: 30 Jan 2011 Will the site be developed to house more people? Yes. It's simply the order of magnitude increase in number of people that concerns me. Why does the increase need to be that drastic? I suppose it boils down to more units equaling more money for the developer. Developer Bruno Wall was quoted as estimating the dollar value of the project to be in the "hundreds of millions." There isn't a regard paid to the neighbourhood that this development happens in.

Although there is a glimmer of hope that public meetings regarding this project are happening and that a good number of people are weighing in, there is a historical perspective that is conveniently forgotten. Wall Financial likes to push envelopes as well as altering city skylines. One , completed in 2001, had it's share of controversies over height. It's well known that he fought a protracted legal battle with the city over the height of One Wall Centre resulting in being sued over the excessive height. Was there a blind eye cast towards the application for the height of that development by the city? Was the height of the original permit ignored? Was the height of the building eventually amended? No. A fine was paid and the issue went away.

The commissioned architect for that project, Peter Busby, said, at that time, that "Wall represents a dying breed — a client willing to take a risk to build a tower that will stand out". The same architectural firm is involved with the redevelopment of Shannon Mews. Clearly these firms work well together in their flagrant disregard for public opinion.

Why hasn't the city learned from past experiences that this developer is simply playing the game and will build what it intends to build regardless of what the public has to say?

It appears that the neighbourhood residents have quite the battle ahead of themselves but to what end? Will we see history repeating itself?

Amusingly Bruno Wall was quoted in the Vancouver Courier on January 26th, 2001 as saying that he isn't concerned the development will become an issue in the November municipal election. Perhaps it's time for the neighbourhood to prove him wrong and indeed make it an issue for the November election. The city should be working for it's citizens...not against them or their wishes.

So I say redevelop the site but do so in a manner befitting the neighbourhood. Please don't make the Shannon Mews redevelopment into the crowning jewel of your legacy for the wrong reasons.

HEIGHT/DENSITY 5 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 51 By: archwerks Clearly the Wall Financial Corp has the city plannning dept. in it's pocket. 2 0 On: 31 Jan 2011 In response to: 46 108 By: Ovaltine88 Removed by moderator - the comment contained bad language. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 06 Feb 2011 In response to: 46 47 By: GHKL Did any one read the comments quoted in the Courier January 26th addition. They quoted " Toderian 4 0 On: 30 Jan 2011 said community visions are visions, not rules, and for major projects like this the city weighs other objectives including a desire for strategic densification and green design."

This certainly does not sound promising for the public process of the community expressing their vision for the neighbourhood.

Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/business/City+seeks+quell+concern+over+Kerrisdale+development/416998 8/story.html#ixzz1CZX2qSmHstated the the city's vision of the community 48 By: wittman Towers are NOT part of any ARKS guidelines. 6 0 On: 30 Jan 2011 The city has put into place ARKS as a "watchdog" for public, neighbourhood review of any and all proposals. Why is it now wanting to do its own "barking" with a host of "other" forums for feedback and input. Surely, the message is loud and clear: STOP THIS INSANITY 54 By: gracie The ARKS vision document was prepared thoughtfully and over a considerable period of time. The City 5 0 On: 31 Jan 2011 seems bent on ignoring this, although it has no other plan or vision. It seems irresponsible for the City to be dealing with 70th and Granville, Shannon Mews, 52nd and Granville, 49th and Granville, 16th and Granville and who knows how many other proposed projects without any overall plan or vision. At the moment, City Hall seems to be adopting an ad hoc "planning by developer" approach. Until City Hall has something else, the ARKS vision should apply, and the buildings should be no more than 4 stories.

ARKS being applied makes sense, since anything higher than 4 stories would be out of place and would not respect the single family neighbourhood which surrounds the project.

I am also dismayed by the City's press conference with the developer. If the developer's proposal is approved, and the City gets its way, there are HUGE amounts of money which the City will receive by going along with the developer's proposal ... given that amount of money, the City should be especially sensitive to ensure that the process of consideration of the proposal is fair, balanced and transparent and

HEIGHT/DENSITY 6 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE does not look like a cash grab. By holding a press conference with the developer, the City has given the appearance that it endorses the proposal - it will now be hard to accept that the proposal is, indeed, being dealt with in an unbiased way. Shame on the planning department for tainting the whole process! 56 By: Jimmer Comparisons with the Cambie Corridor Study: 6 0 On: 31 Jan 2011 City recommends 6 stories in areas between Canada Line stations. In comparison to the high frequency Canada Line rapid transit service, Granville has one bus. If we're trying to be sustainable, we would need greater transit service for a development as proposed by the developer, AND folks, we ain't going to get any increased transit service in the foreseeable future! Thus in comparing to Cambie, we should have building heights substantially less than 6-stories. And on Cambie, the upper floors are stepped back. The ARKS Vision proposes 4-stories which is still an increase in density over the single-family existing zoning. 58 By: SSB The area is a single house area. A 14 floors building looks like a monster in a rabbit family. And, the 5 1 On: 31 Jan 2011 location of the plan is at the local max. high place. That means the neighbors around there won't have any private at the backyard even in the family/living room. They will be seen by the families who live at the high stories of the apartment.

To me, 4 stories will be acceptable. 63 By: Lawson1945 I like the presentation, this complex will give more people a opportunity to live in a nice area and I have 0 9 On: 01 Feb 2011 no time for greedy people that want to keep it for themselves regardless of the reason, Vancouver needs more of these projects because Vancouver is running out of prime development land, Kerrisdale has always had a bad attitude, they would not even allow a modern mall or a sports bar, they all live in the past like Kerrisdale was still their own little city, time to increase taxes on the large property owners to bring them to their senses, more properties should be developed. 66 By: Lawson1945 I want to mention that someone whom I do not know has been criticing the developer, from what I have 0 6 On: 01 Feb 2011 seen from them in other parts of the City their projects are first class, do you now anyone that can do better, tell the city on this website who that is. And that is why I would buy! 71 By: Lawson1945 Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 03 Feb 2011 In response to: 66 67 By: maccer59 I like progress, but I am opposed to greed! It seems to me that the redevelopment could achieve 4 1 On: 02 Feb 2011 somewhere up to a doubling of the number of residents without serious impact on the neighbourhood. Surely more than this will be overkill and result in a serious change in our environment. Four floors is my top. I'd certainly support some public greenspace. I like the trees but realize that selected trees could be replaced by smaller flowering ones. Give the place a good facelift and redevelop some of the area up to 4

HEIGHT/DENSITY 7 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE stories. Keep the original house. You'll get my vote! 68 By: Jimmer ARKS Vision (approved by City Council) states six stories and above are not supported by the community 3 1 On: 02 Feb 2011 because disagree votes out-number agree votes in both the general and random surveys. Six story and more apartmnets will not be brought forward for consideration when additional housing planning occurs in the community. 4 stories remain on the table for consideration and public discussion when additional housing planning occurs in the community. 70 By: 59er This does not bode well for discussions limiting height for new developments in Vancouver: 4 0 On: 02 Feb 2011 http://www.straight.com/article-371138/vancouver/city-approves-new-policy-taller-buildings- downtown-vancouver

"Vancouver city council voted to pass a report Tuesday that could lead to taller buildings at seven downtown sites.

The general policy for higher buildings, which passed with opposition from COPE councillors Ellen Woodsworth and David Cadman, allows for future consideration of taller buildings at certain sites in the downtown core, including the Granville and bridgeheads.

The policy allow for a building of up to 700 feet in the central business district, up from the current restriction of 600 feet for the tallest building, and a maximum height of 550 feet for other nearby sites.

The decision is being criticized by some residents, who say they're concerned the policy could open the door to more widespread tower development."

This might set a precedent in increasing the heights for other building sites in Vancouver. Wake up City of Vancouver!! 83 By: sparky The city doesn't seem to have a process to define the constraints related to height and density and looks 3 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 at the developer to come up with these numbers. The height/density related constraints should be driven by an overall plan for the Granville corridor. The current ad-hoc, piecemeal approach shows a lack of understanding of what city planning is all about.

Given the lack of an official vision for the Granville corridor provided by the city, the ARKS vision should be used as the main driver for setting up the height/density for this development.

HEIGHT/DENSITY 8 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 93 By: Lawson1945 I like this project I only wish the towers would go to 500 ft, what a great view of Vancouver we would 0 3 On: 04 Feb 2011 have, not interested in any green initatives by the City Hall because things will change after the 2011 Elections. 102 By: Hector Major concern is the rezoning application which will significantly change the character of the 4 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 neighbourhood if the proposed redevelopment of this property is allowed to go forward. 891 suites as planned is completely unacceptable of more than six times the present density no matter if it is in low rise or high rise towers. The suggestion to have high rise buildings sprinkled throughout the property will cause the ascetics of the area to be substantially degraded and once this property is developed (and ruined in my opinion) there will be no going back. 104 By: Canadian This project is much needed in the City of Vancouver, I do not mind if the heights go higher! 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 110 By: Spark Maximum 4-storey height with heritage architecture, not glass and concrete modern. That was what the 1 2 On: 10 Feb 2011 ARK community vision is. Please respect the neighbourhood characteristics. So many highrise proposals put forward by developers around Vancouver, I do not feel the city council has the general public's interest at heart, rather biased in favour of the developers. 158 By: Lawson1945 Totally disagree your heights are not realistic in this growing city and limited land, these towers should 0 0 On: 18 Mar 2011 be the same the Beach Towers on beach avenue, why should your area be any different, or the same as In response to: 110 the towers at Langara Gradens also on 57th ave. 111 By: Georgia TWO storeys is high enough. If I wanted to live adjacent to towers I would have bought downtown or at 3 1 On: 10 Feb 2011 Oakridge. I don't want any more density in our quiet, residential, relaxed neighborhood. The schools is this area are filled to the maximum. will not allow additionals to any of the present schools. 112 By: Dogwood Have the city thought about the available amenity for the neighbourhood? By bringing 4 times more 4 0 On: 11 Feb 2011 population to this condense area, will the existing amenity be able to provide services ie. schools, daycares, parks, playgrounds, community centers? There is not enough parks to serve the community as of now. How will the redevelopment with only 33% open space left on site to provide for additional 2000 people? Where should people go?

This is a low density neighbourhood. The high-rise towers don’t fit into the existing character. I understand that the city likes to create more housing units in Vancouver. However, by putting up big towers will not solve the problem. It just benefits speculators to flip the over-heated real estate market. Will it make City of Vancouver more affordable, certainly not? It just makes the developer richer. What can the community benefit from this redevelopment plan? Nothing but jam up in traffic, street parking, park, school, and community centers.

HEIGHT/DENSITY 9 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE I am not opposed to redevelopment but it has to be sensible and beneficial to the community/society. And, I don’t see this part in the developer’s proposal. 118 By: Terry S The buildings shown in Proposals 1 and 2 are too high and, not least of all,completely at odds with the 3 1 On: 14 Feb 2011 rest of Granville Street with the concrete and glass block or slab look. The towers have the appearance of light industrial buildings or scientific or educational establishments . Nothing higher than four stories should be permitted to minimise the impact on the neighbourhood. Take a leaf out of Granville Mews bookfor something in keeping wit the Granville Street look nurtured by the previous generations of City planners. Arks Option 2 is as far as I would like this development to go. 120 By: archwerks Density: 2 0 On: 15 Feb 2011 The planning department, if u can call it planning(!), is to cram more than 5 times more units, some will no doubt be 3 or more bedroom units, in the form of several steel & glass towers, into a single family neighbourhood where there is only one transit line service, then, throw in, without questions, the developer's obviously inadequate traffic assessment. To promote the idea add "Eco" in front of "density" & further say it will be built to LEED standard, which is like saying let's build an unsinkable ship. because whether it will be certified as LEED is an entirely different thing.

The director of planning should have done the job he was paid by the citizens to do, and told the developer to get back to the drawing board instead of wasting taxpayers' money on these "workshops", which would have been unnecessary if he or the planning department had done their job.

Height:

When the Mansion was built, it was suppose to be the dominant building on the estate, if it is to remain as a Heritage building on the estate, no other building should be higher then the Mansion. What is the point of calling it Heritage when you dwarf it with 4 storey blocks all around & throw in a few glass & steel "Office" like glass towers. 121 By: archwerks Developers are using LEED to promote their Greed. 2 0 On: 15 Feb 2011 When 891(or more) toilets flush they don't come out smelling roses! 122 By: pfchan It will be interesting to document why Vancouverites in the ARKS area have such fear of height and 0 4 On: 19 Feb 2011 density. There is almost a bodily reaction against height. There is, in my opinion, an association of height with things sinister, as if tall buildings represent the kind of macabre condition found in J.G. Ballard's "High Rise". Architects and planners should investigate the cause of such reactions. This is where the built

HEIGHT/DENSITY 10 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE environment professions can benefit from the disciplines of the humanities and even psychoanalysis.

However, having said that, I also can't help but wonder if it is simply a case of tall poppy syndrome to support a nostalgic desire for an imagined idyllic past. 126 By: JohnB . The density issue is easy to explain -not paranoia but very real. This is "spot density" ie density with no 2 0 On: 22 Feb 2011 surrounding infrastructure and no possibility of upgrading it to commercial etc. The surrounding single In response to: 122 family dwellings are for the most part less than 20 years old and the RS 6 designation won't be changing anytime soon. The roads and services are beyond capacity as they stand without adding 1 to 2 thousand more people. Granville cannot be widened, and 57th is unlikely to gain more lanes either. No major transit upgrades are envisioned on iether route. I think the height issue is a matter of privacy, dominance, and, ultimately, unfair property value transfer. I doubt if many would object if all the buildings in the area (such as in the West End) were the same height. In this case, the increased property value accrues to the developer at the expense of reduced values to the local residents because of the decline in neighbourhood privacy and character. The proposed tower at the corner of 57th and Granville being called "Wall's finger" pretty much sums up the feeling in the neighbourhood. 123 By: Liberal It looks like market rentals in this high-profit development are going to be very expensive. There should 0 1 On: 20 Feb 2011 be some provision for a certain number of lower income or "affordable" rentals in such a profitable development. Doesn't the city have a policy about this? I thought mixed neighbourhoods were regarded as a good idea, for neighbours and for society in general. 127 By: hbrown I don't know if this is the correct forum section for my comments, but I just can't bear the thought of 2 1 On: 23 Feb 2011 another soul less looking apartment complex going up in this city. Especially at the expense of the beautiful architectural and landscaping nods to Vancouver's past. I've lived almost my entire adult life in this city, and I have seen so many wonderful buildings destroyed to appease parasitic and cancerous developers.

The even sadder thing is that this cancer is happening world wide. I've traveled to India in the past year and was quite taken back to see exactly the SAME type of condo developments, along with same advertising as we see here. Everything, everywhere is shifting towards stylish monotony.

Leave the Mews alone for god sake. Not for anything other than the beauty of them Be brave, stand up for something other than short term gain, and take a walk through this city and enjoy what's left, because tomorrow it may be gone. 140 By: Contrain Removed by moderator comment came from user with multiple user names. Please refer to the 0 0 On: 04 Mar 2011 moderation rules.

HEIGHT/DENSITY 11 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 141 By: BCConservative Removed by moderator - user had multiple logins. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 04 Mar 2011 149 By: admin The comments of the following user have been removed as the participant has made use of multiple 1 0 On: 14 Mar 2011 logins - here are the names to be aware of: Lawson1945, Action 2011, Vancouver Resident, Canada, Canadian, kwlawson, kwlawson45, lawson2010, Contrain, BCConservative, 1945. The participant's behavior is against the Terms of Use (or rules) of the site, agreed to when users sign up. 153 By: Lawson1945 I stick to my original opinion, the heights are far to low, we need more density in these areas regardless of 0 1 On: 14 Mar 2011 what locals think, they are not making any more land you know!

HEIGHT/DENSITY 12 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

TRAFFIC AND PARKING

More density through a diversity of housing types will bring more traffic, can this be managed effectively - tell us how?

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 12 By: archwerks 2 The traffic assessment is based on what assumptions? 6 0 On: 13 Jan 2011 Without knowing the demographics of the owners of these residences, the directions of their travels, if by private vehicle, or whether they would use public transit, even if it is free, what is the margin of error to be expected ? 13 By: GHKL 1. What measures will be made to ensure that there is no increase in non-neighborhood traffic in the 5 1 On: 13 Jan 2011 streets surrounding this project?

2. During peak traffic hours in the afternoon/evening, there is a "NO Left Turn" for vehicles travelling north at the Granville and 57th intersection. With the increased in the number of vehicles travelling to the Shannon Mews property north bound on Granville, how will these vehicles be able to access Shannon Mews if they are not allowed to turn left (westbound onto west 57th) on Granville street. This would cause an increase in non-neighborhood traffic in the blocks south of West 57th Avenue, as the Shannon Mews home owners try to access the West 57th Shannon Mews Parkade entrance.

There is already a south bound blocker for vehicles trying to travel south on Adera at West 57th. The south bound intersection entrance at 57th and Adera should be blocked for both north and south bound traffic, in order to minimize non-neighborhood traffic by those trying to accesss the Shannon Mews complex when they are not able to turn west on Granville and 57th. 18 By: Archwerks "solving" traffic issues in this city is at or beyond the scope of simply dealing with 1, 2, 3 or 10 3 0 On: 15 Jan 2011 intersections or city blocks at a time. The traffic is calmed in one area only to be sidetracked into other In response to: 13 neighbourhoods. It is plain to see that there is no real plan that effectively deals with east-west traffic. The only 3 "major" arterial routes in East/West direction, is Broadway, 41st avenue, Marine Drive, all surface street, with only 3 lanes per direction, 1 of which is usually for dedicated left turns.The other streets are 2 lanes interrupted by sections of single lane, if not fewer. You can count in 2 hands, just about all the east to West lanes that are available from Boundary to Dunbar. All the studies done thus far indicate that the major destinations of traffic, whether by foot, bike, transit, private vehicle are the airport, , UBC, SFU and with a million or more residents to come in the next 20 years... The Canada Line may have solved the airport issue for the moment but that is a north south route that is served by Knight, Victoria, Fraser, Main, Cambie, Oak, Granville, Arbutus, MacDonald Streets. Until there is something comprehensively planned for east west arterial besides the 3 streets mentioned,

TRAFFIC AND PARKING 13 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE all east west traffic will funnel thru, residential neighbourhood streets, with every density increasing project wherever it is in the City of Vancouver. So here in a rs6, single family neighbourhood, with only 1 traffic light at 57th & Granville, the city is considering an increase in FSR of more than 3 times the current zoning. If this is not putting the cart before the horse, I wonder what is ? 62 By: Amelia How would local traffic get to Granville Street from W 59th if 57th is blocked both Ways at Adera? There is 1 0 On: 31 Jan 2011 already a no left turn at Granvills St and W59th. The only other light is at 64th. Which has a no left turn In response to: 13 going South on Adera. If we had to go to Angus & 57th We would then end up waiting with all the other traffic that is already backed up in rush hours. With all the extra traffic idleing trying to get to Granville St this would cause quite a pollution problem for residents on 57th. 14 By: cwu32 Traffic and parking problems cannot be solved effectively. 11 0 On: 14 Jan 2011 Creating problems first then trying to come up with insufficient solutions later is not going to work. If, to make zone as "parking with permits only," how many people simply ignore the sign and park illegally without permits? This solution solves nothing. As for traffic, the traffic condition along Granville Street during rush hours is not even solved yet! Don't we suffer enough from traffic jam starting at 5 on Granville Street ( especially from 49th Ave all the way to Granville Bridge )? This problem has not even solved, yet with new problems caused by these applications, how much worse is it going to be? Solution for the traffic issues brought by the redevolopment of Shannon Mews? You haven't even come up with a good solution for our current traffic conditions yet! 15 By: Jamschen Removed by moderator - the comment was potentially defamatory. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 15 Jan 2011 17 By: Jamschen I'm just furious about this stupid project by Mr. Wall. Thank you very much. 3 1 On: 15 Jan 2011 69 By: Morris Removed by moderator - the comment was potentially defamatory. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 02 Feb 2011 In response to: 17 72 By: Lawson1945 Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 03 Feb 2011 In response to: 17 84 By: Lawson1945 To bad I like it and will be moving in soon as this nonsense is completed! 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 In response to: 17

TRAFFIC AND PARKING 14 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 95 By: Lawson1945 Also so I want 5 towers to reach the 500 ft level! 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 In response to: 84 22 By: Jimmer The transportation report deals only with the traffic considerations of the driveways and nearby street. 10 0 On: 18 Jan 2011 There's no analysis of the impact on the other streets themselves except for an observation that two westbound lanes on 57th at Granville are desirable. Do they know about how congested Granville can be as it backs up from Marpole and the high accident rate at the Granville/49th Avenue intersection? What is the impact of this increase in vehicle trips on this congestion and accident rates? What is the impact on climate change from adding more congestion and idling cars? Definitely not a SUSTAINABLE situation. How do we protect Adera from northbound/southbound trips from/to the development? Any increase in density MUST be accompanied by the provision of sustainable transportation choices. The City's priorities for transportation growth (Jerry Dobrovolny at recent ARKS meeting discussing the City's Transportation Plan) is all growth to be taken up through walking, cycling and transit. The transit analysis is lacking. The Developer talked about Canada Line being 10 minutes away; yet TransLinks' web- site indicates that a trip Downtown is best taken on the No. 10 bus on Granville which is likely pretty full to take a large proportion of the growth in trips from the increased density. I understand there' s no plans by Translink to improve bus service on Granville. There are no jobs, nor shopping here, so all these trips will have to be by vehicle which is not a sustainable ideal. Will the Developer provide, in perpetuity, a shuttle bus to the Marpole shopping area, the shopping area at 57th/Boulevard, and to the 49th Avenue Canada Line station? I think one could argue that this transportation analysis does NOT deal with residents' concerns about increased traffic on arterials such as Granville nor 57th Avenue, nor on local, residential streets. It does not deal with parking impacts. It does not deal with sustainable transportation options which should be required of any development which adds a substantial increase in traffic due to increased density. As such, the statement that there is no transportation impact of Wall's proposal should be withdrawn from any comparison of options. The other less-dense redeveliopment options should contain a statement that, from a transporation impact, they are better from a climate change and sustainability perspective. The City should require a more comprehensive transporation analysis under their direction, not the developers. It should show a comparison of all the redevelopment options. The terms of reference for such a study should be developed in collaboration with neighbourhood stakeholders. 52 By: Morris What about the increased traffic from the proposed towers at 70th and Granville? Has this been taken in 1 0 On: 31 Jan 2011 account? In response to: 22

TRAFFIC AND PARKING 15 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 25 By: archwerks In the traffic assessment report, if you add the entrance & exit numbers together for "Peak hour" 5 0 On: 19 Jan 2011 ( whatever that means as no criteria or assumptions & margin of errors are known), onto West 57th Avenue, that total amounts to 385 to 415. If Peak Hour in the study is defined as 60 minutes (which we don't know, as the criteria & terms of the study is unpublished, & may well remain a secret unless we have access to it), then 3600 sec.per hour/400 vehicular movements = 9 seconds per vehicle, either entering or exiting the new development !! This does not even include vehicles using W.57th to access Marine Drive to go to & from UBC or Arbutus & East Blvd. to go to & from Kerrisdale or S.W. Marine residents to go to & from their homes! Granville street is essentially highway 99 (check your maps), Concert Properties is planning developments south of the Fraser Arms Motel, plus Safeway & 70th Ave, & nursing home @ Granville & 49th, then last & not least Shannon Mews ! & the City Planning Dept. has no comprehensive study or plan for vehicular management or traffic study yet for the entire city despite the fact we are at Winter Olympics +1 year, What are they waiting for ??? Should the department be renamed the City Unplanning Department? Where is the leadership at city hall, besides bicycle paths in a city known for rain 10 months of the year? 31 By: Nalytalk Is WFC going to make a fortune off this property? Should I begin to purchase their stock? It has been 1 0 On: 25 Jan 2011 steadily climbing lately.

Thoughts? 57 By: Morris Why should Wall be allowed to redevelop this property when he did not maintain the current property. 1 0 On: 31 Jan 2011 He has allowed the property to deteriorate to such an extent that redevelopment is the only option. It is In response to: 31 disgraceful that he has allowed the Mansion to fall into such disrepair. 34 By: albertgorgor 1. There are many developments in UBC and Dunbar, we may expect more and more traffic will go 3 0 On: 28 Jan 2011 though 57th Ave instead of congested Marine Drive during the peak hours. The transportation report does not affect the future traffic growth.

2. The south exit of Shannon Mews is too close to 57th Ave & Granville crossroad, the line-up before traffic light will block the busy exit during the peak hours.

3. Driver will found it is difficult to left turn at 57th Ave exit because the continuous traffic flow on 57th Ave during the peak hours. It will cause back up inside the parking lot. The situation will become worse when more people using this exit.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING 16 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 35 By: albertgorgor The Transportation Assessment Report suggested that to add a left turn lane will solve the congestion at 4 0 On: 28 Jan 2011 the crossroad of 57th Ave and Granville. However, the people using 57th Ave have already line up in 2 files during the peak hours, one for left turn and the other for eastbound and right turn traffic. So, adding a left turn lane on 57th Ave cannot solve the problem.

I wonder if the guys were really there when they prepared this report! 41 By: JohnB In addition to the other comments here, note than possible solutions to the congestion nightmare are 3 0 On: 29 Jan 2011 slim. There can be no entrances onto Granville St because that would impede traffic flow on a major artery, and greatly increase porential for accidents in a zone where some of the highest accident densities in the city are already reported. Likewise due to the location of the heritage buildings in the middle, only 2 entrances onto 57th can be built. Any other solutions would involve entrances onto Churchill or Adera St and make them secondary traffic arteries too. This is not currently a solution in any of the proposals, but be aware that if the main proposal goes ahead it will become inevitable that these options will be explored. In my estimate, the developer is fully aware of this flaw and hopes folks won't notice till it's too late and it is built. Then .. voila! We really need more entrances, so let's build some onto Churchill and Adera. 45 By: archwerks Instead of preparing to work on Solutions with the public at the Shannon Mews workshops facilitated by 1 0 On: 30 Jan 2011 the city of Vancouver, they are just tabulating objections & concerns ( Justifiably so), none were prepared to discuss the trend in city traffic mitgation in urban planning as proposed by the Ian Lockwood Study, attached as a link on this & other City of Vancouver websites.

Nobody even suggested any solutions(as I do here) that the city must be granted the right to expand the western most southbound lane along the property from West 54th t0 57th, in order to facilitate ingress for southbound traffic on Granville & egress southbound onto Granville st. as part of a comprehensive traffic plan based on a proper Traffic IMPACT study,, taking into account all of vancouver's traffic, especially access to the UBC peninsula, as continuiing developments there are relying on a single lane on Marine drive. If taking apart the Heritage rubble wall, rebuildind it 12 feet over will help, then that should be done. If the City Council sees fit to throw out the ARKS Visioning process established in 2005, then moving an old disrepaired Heritage rubble wall in order to facilitate pedestrian & cyclist safety at 57th & Granville, should not be an obstacle.

Many similar sized cities around the world have had Computerized Co-ordinated traffic control. It's time that post Olympic Vancouver should consider having one, if we are to have higher density & proper movement of goods & services in the region for an extra million residents in the next 20 years.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING 17 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 49 By: wittman Traffic problems already exist at Granville and 57th. Avenue. 4 0 On: 30 Jan 2011 Even a 50% increase in density will inexorably lead to a nightmarish situation. It simply cannot be managed effectively, so stop living in a dreamworld! 73 By: Lawson1945 Wittman I agree, they can solve the problem by designing a proper roads which this g.d. City Hall has 1 0 On: 03 Feb 2011 never done and now they are paying for it now, there is no shortage of land in this area, it has to do more In response to: 49 with greedy land owners in this area that do not want to see progress and only concerned abou their property values. 128 By: Cathy JMN When walking this neighborhood Lawson, I think you'll see that the homes and gardens most often 0 0 On: 28 Feb 2011 reflect their owners/renters respect for their beautiful city. Rather than greedy land owners I think you're In response to: 73 hearing from people who care about their community and the families who live in it. 60 By: sspomper The increased traffic will affect 57th down to Arbutus. I often turn left onto 57th after going west on 3 0 On: 31 Jan 2011 Angus and find it a challenge sometimes. What will happen with the increased traffic goin South on 57th as they will be unable to turn left when leaving Shannon Mews. 74 By: Lawson1945 Sspomper you simply design a system of new roads to accomodate the mess your in, nothing has been in 1 0 On: 03 Feb 2011 this area for hundred years. You put a cable on the road to track how much traffic there really is so simple, In response to: 60 but Vancouver City Engineering Depart is to bloody lazy, this is what happens when you allow unions like CUPE into municipal government. 64 By: Lawson1945 By building proper roads and access areas, you tell me Transportation Assessment Report when was the 1 0 On: 01 Feb 2011 last the City of Vancouver built a new street that was longer than a mile, I bet none of you know. Kerrisdae 41 st is nightmare, intersection of 41 st and east and west boulevard is a mess and the City Staff just sit on thier butts doing nothing, your getting the big bucks, you design roads to match the developments coming on stream first not after, pull those dam railway tracks you do not need them. 81 By: sparky It looks like the city doesn't have a process in place to define the overall constraints for any developments 1 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 on Granville, as nobody at the city seems to be looking at the big picture, i.d. Granville corridor. An overall traffic report including capacity, safety, parking, etc. should be put together by the city and drive the overall constraints for all the proposals on Granville. Given the lack of understanding of where we’re going, any increase should be done in small increments and the impact should be very carefully analyzed prior to any development. 82 By: sparky The city mentioned that they don’t want to spend on writing a traffic report, but they would rather 2 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 comment on the one provided by the developer. Given the fact that most of the people considered this report inadequate, we’d like to see these comments in advance of any official release, and make sure that the city has addressed all the traffic-related concerns raised by the neighbourhood. Again, these traffic issues should be understood in a larger context of the Granville corridor. The overall report for Granville should be done by the city, as any developer will address only the local concerns.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING 18 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 91 By: Lawson1945 Removed by moderator incites others to break moderation rules. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 94 By: Lawson1945 Who created this Transportation Assessment Report, members of Vision Vancouver? 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 113 By: smna3311 The developer "estimates" that each future unit will have average of 1.2 cars/per. How is this figure 2 0 On: 12 Feb 2011 calculated, on what evidence or scientific basis? Its traffic study is based on this assumption, which seems unrealistic to me. City must question this assumption critically and perhaps does its own study/research. With this development, traffic congestion will be a major concern, and Granville street, 57th streets and neighborhood streets will be "flooded" with traffic, leading to grid lock and accidents, unless a thorough and careful traffic analysis is done. City should not accept developer's version as submitted. 116 By: archwerks Granville St. is one of the busiest arterial because it connects the airport with all the major hotels, the new 3 0 On: 14 Feb 2011 convention centre, the BC Place stadium, hockey & other entertainment venues. Are the new Super Jumbo 747s & Airbus jet liners not coming to Vancouver ? Do we have all the tourists business we can handle & we don't need them here anymore? Should they land in Seattle instead? Do you expect residential developments on the University Endowment Lands to seize? Do you expect the UBC faculties & faculty traffic to remain at current levels forever? Do you expect traffic to line up single file on S.W. Marine Drive from w. 70th to w. 41st Avenues? Do you expect everyone to bicycle in from west Richmond to downtown Vancouver? Then you allow major developments & redevelopments all along the residential neighbourhooods from Marpole to First Shaughnessey without a comprehensive traffic impact study, relying on individual developer's supposedly "unbiased" piecemeal "assessment" of each development. There are churches & elementary schools on either side of Granville St. & you wonder why people drive their kids to school. You want people to walk, yet it is abundantly clear to all residents along Granville St. that they take great risk crossing it between 49th to 60th & 41st to 49th (with only 1 pedestrian controlled crosswalk at 45th) Then you slap on "Eco " in front of "density", and everything is okay! 119 By: Terry S By Terry S 3 0 On: 14 Feb 2011 Only a planner set on supporting this development can ignore the huge traffic headaches that will result if the proposals are not drastically trimmed back. But not even mentioned in previous comments is the demand for parking space for commercial vehicles that will continually arrive on site to service the large number of residents. Some of them will stay for hours at a time. Adera and W.57th are too narrow to allow trucks to park in large numbers on their shoulders day in and day out. The only solution is for adequate commercial vehicle parking to be provided on the site.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING 19 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 150 By: admin The comments of the following user have been removed as the participant has made use of multiple 0 0 On: 14 Mar 2011 logins - here are the names to be aware of: Lawson1945, Action 2011, Vancouver Resident, Canada, Canadian, kwlawson, kwlawson45, lawson2010, Contrain, BCConservative, 1945. The participant's behavior is against the Terms of Use (or rules) of the site, agreed to when users sign up. 154 By: Lawson1945 Once again you can only get more density by going up, Once again you have to reconfigure the roads 0 0 On: 14 Mar 2011 and highways, traffic will not go down in this area because the access to two major bridges, both connecting to the airport, not everyone will take the Canada line. Oak and Granville may have to be widen to 8 lanes including the current bus lanes,curb lanes. Roads entering this complex simply have to be reconfigured but that is the responsibility of Engineering period.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING 20 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

OPEN SPACE

Open space is a key feature of this site. To what degree should open space be protected and be made public?

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 61 By: archwerks No Amount of open space & accessibility to such by the public will make it appealing when you stick a 3 0 On: 31 Jan 2011 few multi-storey glass towers in the middle of an Italianate garden. The Open space will be Walled Off (Pun intended) by glass clad buildings, & will only benefit the outlook of the residents from within, & make the condos more marketable. The public or neighbours are the ones that need to be protected from developers & a city hall who sees dollar signs only, everytime a building goes up. The following comparison may give the present situation far too much credit but..... let's put it this way; the Eiffel tower may be a marvelous achievement in building technology in it's time , the gardens at Versailles is wonderful, but would you put the Eiffel tower in Versaille? The whole proposal should be sent back to drawing board. 80 By: sparky Why is this even a topic? Nobody seems to care about it, given the fact that this space will not be so open 1 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 (only for residents) and there are plenty of places to go and spend your time outside (including your own backyard). 87 By: Lawson1945 Very little green space should be applied to this project because it has enough green already, also keep in 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 mind the majority in this City of Vancouver are not in favour of any Green Action that many employed at the City of Vancouver want it to be and 2011 Election will determine if we are to forward with anything Green and will be firing employees that are not in tune with the wishes of majority in Vancouver 114 By: smna3311 Who will use this so called "green space" other than the residents of this development? The space within 1 0 On: 12 Feb 2011 is private property, not city owned. Wall Financial can restrict access or impose whatever restictions it wants. Besides, the residents themselves may not want much public access for their own privacy concern. I doubt the public will benefit much from it. 115 By: Michelle Yip At the design workshops held so far, there has been a mix of opinions about whether public access on 0 1 On: 14 Feb 2011 and through is necessary, preferable or manditory. We have also received a range of comments about how much publicly accessible open space should be provided - would a smaller open space be satisfactory if it meant that some density was removed from the towers and placed elsewhere on the site? 129 By: Cathy JMN It will be very sad to see the Italian garden with it's beautiful stone bench and marvelous stairways, a story 1 0 On: 28 Feb 2011 of Vancouver in itself, along with the historic gardens destroyed. Sadly, I would rather see this happen In response to: 115 than have 14 story buildings on the site. Sheesh, what a choice! Did anyone, ever, suggest rebuilding and repairing the existing structures? Now that would be eco friendly!

OPEN SPACE 21 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 157 By: Lawson1945 It is very hard to make that judgement unless you have been on the current site and where the old 0 0 On: 15 Mar 2011 manison is to make that evalution, open space to you may be different from what I think is, Beach Towers In response to: 115 where I lived one time on Beach Avenue, three towers have plenty of open space, but is all concrete but it is open, is that what you mean? Beach Towers height is pretty reasonable but I do not know how high they are! 130 By: Local Resident I don't care about open space, if it comes at the cost of more density. 0 0 On: 28 Feb 2011 A small plot of land in the middle of a massive development is going to serve the area no purpose, it's almost comical that it is assumed residents in the area would actually care about such a thing. 151 By: admin The comments of the following user have been removed as the participant has made use of multiple 0 0 On: 14 Mar 2011 logins - here are the names to be aware of: Lawson1945, Action 2011, Vancouver Resident, Canada, Canadian, kwlawson, kwlawson45, lawson2010, Contrain, BCConservative, 1945. The participant's behavior is against the Terms of Use (or rules) of the site, agreed to when users sign up. 155 By: Lawson1945 I would like to know how you can have density and open space, explain how you do it? It is either one or 0 0 On: 14 Mar 2011 the other!

OPEN SPACE 22 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

SUSTAINABILITY

Will the City's requirements for greener buildings benefit your community - tell us more?

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 19 By: archwerks Of course any & every effort will be worthwhile, but until we recycle every gram of everything like the 0 0 On: 15 Jan 2011 astronauts in the space station, sustainability can only be measured by the degree to which the user of that service is willing to pay! 21 By: Jimmer Sustainability is a very vague topic; BUT it is certainly more than just "green" buildings. It is suggested 2 1 On: 17 Jan 2011 that traffic congestion contributes more to climate change impacts than "greening" houses. The City's Transportation Plan priorizes trips by transit, walk, and cycling. Granville has poor transit services now and probably no improvements in the foreseeable future. The development has no jobs or shopping within walking distance, so most of the increased trips due to increased density here will be by car. Density increases while perhaps recognized as necessary along arterials, should be minimized because of the impact of the increased traffic congestion. Alternatively, the developer could be made to pay for a shuttle bus service between the Marpole Shopping area, 57th/Boulevard shopping centre, and the Canada Line station at 49th/Cambie. 53 By: Morris Why should we think that Mr. Wall will incorporate any greening in his plans. He has just let Shannon 1 0 On: 31 Jan 2011 Mews deteriorate to such an extent that a new development has to be done. He should not be allowed to In response to: 21 create something that in a few years will again have to be redeveloped. 37 By: Glenn L Sustainability is great, however you define it, but it is not cheap. The reality is that adding 1000+ people 3 0 On: 28 Jan 2011 to a neighbourhood is not sustainable, this of course is in addition to the 70th & granville develpment. Even if there was a contained wastewater system, and contained central heat distribution. The cost to maintain this is excessive and though a 1000 people add to the tax base residents will still own on average 1.5 cars. They will still consume food, create waste, use electricity etc. Densification is good. It is a good use of land but it has to be done on a small scale. Build on top of stores, like shannon station, build smaller scale buildings, how about 400 units, not 800+. Sustainability also relates to quality of life, where are the children going to go to school? where are they going to shop? How will they get to all these places? Will they drive to kerrisdale through the neighbourhood, will they use Granville to get to Richmond shopping? Will they use the RAV which is still a 5m drive, by car 15m bus, not walking distance. The development is not sustainable as proposed for both the property and the neighbourhood. 75 By: Lawson1945 Glenn L provide us with the proof that is actually working in the City of Vancouver, we do not accept 0 0 On: 03 Feb 2011 concepts we want reality proof. In response to: 37

SUSTAINABILITY 23 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 78 By: Glenn L If you are referring to the densification. The West End, Yale Town are two good examples. The issues that 1 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 I see are not community but the lack of schools, which will happen in Marpole/Kerrisdale if the two In response to: 75 developments actually go ahead.

Densification is fine but it has to be done in context and respect to the existing neighbourhood. Shannon Mews as proposed is neither. 42 By: JohnB Densification leads to lower utilization of resouces only if all the entire community for the inhabitants is 6 0 On: 29 Jan 2011 local. Consider Europe, where density does lead to less resource utilization per person because people work, play and shop within walking distance, or within walking distance to high speed subsidized cheap transit. In the case of main proposal for Shannon Mews, only the density will rise and none of the other factors are present. It will behave merey as a dense bedroom community where people will drive for all the things they need and do. The adjacent zoning (RS6 single family) makes the European model unlikely in the forseeable future because of significant recent redevelopment in the area as single family. Hence it will be a net environmental polluter compared to building this type of thing near existing areas of increased density such as the West end of , which do in fact have most of the adjacent community already present. 50 By: wittman The mention of "sustainability" in any of the proposals for this site is ludicrous in the extreme. A quick 5 0 On: 30 Jan 2011 glance at the neighbourhood should tell the city that any change in densification at this site will bring about a complete anithesis fo the objectives of sustainability. Sadly, the introduction of such a concept amounts to little more than window dressing. 146 By: Cathy JMN Well said Wittman...I couldn't agree more. City planners and counselors, are you listening? Mr Mayor...this 0 0 On: 11 Mar 2011 is for you! In response to: 50 65 By: Lawson1945 You have not proved green buildings are more sustainable over time because you have not built that 1 0 On: 01 Feb 2011 have been time tested what are you going to do about it, if your not right. 76 By: Lawson1945 Message to this team at City Hall and Greenest City Action Team, get a copy of Discover Canada, The 0 0 On: 03 Feb 2011 rights and responsibilities of Citizenship Section: Freedom of Thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of speech and of the press, keep violating these rights of Canadians or you will not be working at City Hall anytime in the future, wether you like the comments is not your business, but you have the right to comment but you do not have the right to remove any comments period. Just who the hell do you think your working for, if this is the case we will tell people to avoid this website.

SUSTAINABILITY 24 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 77 By: Michelle Yip Lawson1945, 1 1 On: 04 Feb 2011 This is an independently-moderated forum that has a moderation policy that removes any offensive In response to: 76 material. Comments that do not adhere to the moderation rules are removed. Once again, all completed by an independent moderator. The City welcomes your comments, however, we do ask that they remain topical and are not offensive in order to provide an environment where all members of the public can feel comfortable contributing to. 85 By: Lawson1945 Removed by moderator - argument about moderation irrelevant to topic. Please refer to the moderation 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 rules. In response to: 77 90 By: Lawson1945 Majority of Vancouverites are opposed to having seperate meetings in Cantonese or Mandarin are you 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 not aware this is unfair, insult and offensive to other visiable minorities that also live in this city, are you In response to: 77 and Ko responsible for setting these meetings up and if you were from whom did you receive permission to do it, we have our own contacts and friends in City Hall , we will have it investigated, no further meetings of this type in future days. 86 By: Lawson1945 Removed by moderator, offensive. Please refer to the moderation rules. 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 In response to: 76 79 By: sparky This is a counter-example of smart densification and in direct conflict with the green initiatives promoted 5 1 On: 04 Feb 2011 by the city. You can’t just drop a set of huge buildings in the middle of a sea of houses, no walking distance to anything and pretend that this is “green”. The current tenants are using their cars to go to work, shopping, schools, restaurants, etc. This is not a critique, as their behavior is driven by the nature of this neighbourhood. The future tenants will do the same, as there is no way to build a new Yaletown on this site, so for every small trip will jump in their cars and add to the existent traffic problems, pollution, etc. This is not the place for such a huge development. 88 By: Lawson1945 What are you talking about look at the project at the corner of Cambie and 57th just down the road, this 0 2 On: 04 Feb 2011 has been a excellent development and similar to this, I can be corrected but I think it was developed the In response to: 79 Wosk family, called Langara Gardens, I believe the property is larger than this one, but City Hall can do a comparison 105 By: sparky Sorry, but if you look at the Cambie and 57th development (which btw is an eyesore from the 3 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 architectural point of view), you'll see that sits in a completely different neighbourhood: there is a golf In response to: 88 course at the east, a health care facility south, a huge townhouse site at the west. There are very few amenities and it looks like not enough support for a community, even with the Canada Line close by now and the Churchill high school at a walking distance. Not sure what is your criteria for excellency in city planning, but to me it looks like a failure.

SUSTAINABILITY 25 TALK VANCOUVER | SHANNON MEWS Talk To Us About Shannon Mews – Online Discussion Forum | Phase 1

ID COMMENT DETAILS COMMENT AGREE DISAGREE 89 By: Lawson1945 Sparky what happens if the majority of vancouverites are not interested in the green initiatives promoted 0 0 On: 04 Feb 2011 by the city, some promoting this idea may not be employed at this City after the 2011 Election, did you In response to: 79 think about this. I for one is against these green intiatives because not one has proven itself over the long term, we were doing fine before they got here and we will fine after they are long gone. We as in the City of Vancouver 124 By: Lydia H SUSTAINABILITY OF LIVING AT SHANNON MEWS DURING THE TRANSITION AND PHASING: 0 0 On: 21 Feb 2011 Dear Allison, Can we please have a forum for current tenants to discuss concerns regarding living at Shannon Mews during the rezoning and re-development?

I have emailed you directly about the proper forum to voice these type of concerns and was also told during one of the city held workshops that the city would be sending out information to tenants regarding concerns related to living on the site during the rezoning transition and "phasing". I have not received anything in the mail and have not heard back from you. Current tenants have concerns regarding the live-ability of remaining on the estate during these processes.

Thank you in advance for your response to this post.

-Lydia 125 By: Michelle Yip Hi Lydia, 0 0 On: 21 Feb 2011 With Phase 2 coming up, we are planning on updating the forum topics. We will be discussing the forum changes later this week and I will make sure this is discussed. 152 By: admin The comments of the following user have been removed as the participant has made use of multiple 0 0 On: 14 Mar 2011 logins - here are the names to be aware of: Lawson1945, Action 2011, Vancouver Resident, Canada, Canadian, kwlawson, kwlawson45, lawson2010, Contrain, BCConservative, 1945. The participant's behavior is against the Terms of Use (or rules) of the site, agreed to when users sign up. 156 By: Lawson1945 Sustainability means different things to different people, Planning Dept will have to explain this in more 0 0 On: 14 Mar 2011 detail in up coming meetings.

SUSTAINABILITY 26