UPDATE: Granville Loops
February 10, 2009
I see there’s some interesting comments on the motivations of the City for the development of the Granville Loops. Here’s a clarifying note from staff:
One of the things that people are getting confused with is the difference between a major rezoning and a megaproject. Our Loops public benefits are being compared to industrial megaprojects and criticized for not providing 100% of the public benefit demand.What they are not realizing is the current zoning in the Loops already allows for 40% of the total residential floorspace, and this has previously been factored into plans like “Financing Growth”. Whereas industrial megaprojects obviously had zero allowable residential originally, and nothing was factored into city plans previously. If you take out the 40% residents (500 out of 1250) we are actually supplying 100% of the public benefit demands for “new” residents not “previously planned for”.
My understanding, as well, is that the uplift in the land value will be used to finance the improvements to Pacific Boulevard, transforming this de-facto expressway into the ‘Parisian Boulevard’ concept designed by Allan Jacobs.
Advertisement
9 Comments
leave one →
That comment from City staff makes no sense. What, exactly, are they trying to say?
“One of the things people are getting confused about is…”
comment: What are the other things?
“Our Loops public benefits…” Huh?
…”100% of the public benefit demand.” What?
“What they are not realizing…” Who isn’t realizing? People? the public? the Criticizers?
The last paragraph is complete gibberish.
Can someone pleaes interpret this government-speak?
I don’t even understand what they are talking about. How about a providing a link or briefly explain what the Granville Loop is?
I couldn’t understand what it was trying to say either. Why the reference to “industrial megaprojects”? If the land “already” allows for 40% of the proposed residential space – how could it be industrial? And then they use the 100% more than industrial as the “benefit”?
Maybe the comparison is to False Creek when the whole area was railway lands 40 years ago? rather than the difference between what is allowed now and what will be allowed after the rezoning?
Sounds like double-speak to me.
And add to that my personal view that Pacific Boulevard doesn’t need “redeveloping”.
We are just going to see another mass clearcutting of boulevard trees (like on Granville street) so that a designer/planner can implement his “design”. If you look at the pin oak trees that line Pacific Boulevard (many, I suspect, from Expo 86) – you can see that in the 20 years since they were planted, they have grown to nice proportions.
Okay, I understood it perfectly (I think).
This person is saying that people are asking why this redevelopment of Granville Loops (at the north end of the granville bridge) isn’t going to provide the public amenities (parks, etc.) as projects such as False Creek North. The reason, she says, is because the land is already zoned Residential, and can already contain 40 per cent of the floor space that is allowed, and so they can’t extract any benefits from developers for something the developers could do anyway, so they only get extra money on 60 per cent of the floorspace. Basically, they will provide benefits only for the residents not previously zoned for.
On the other hands, False Creek North (which is where the industrial zoning reference comes in) had no previously planned residents, and thus more benefits.
And apparently the benefit, said Gordon, is the new boulevard upgrades, although that’s different.
Hope that helps? If not, oh well. I tried. =)
edit: isn’t going to provide the *same amount of* public amenities (parks, etc.) as projects such as False Creek North.
Tessa nailed it. It’s very straightforward if you understand the lingo, Tessa’s explanation is an excellent translation into laymens terms.
I guess I was trying to read too much into the quote. i.e. Wouldn’t this be expected?
Maybe it’s because we don’t know the context of the quote – I suppose the comments that the City planner is responding to come from area residents who want more amenities?
If these lands are presently a traffic loop, they must surely be owned by the City. How much will the City realize by selling these lands to private companies?