708-796 Renfrew Street and 2906-2908 East Georgia Street

When this 6 floor rental housing building had its first open house in April, the backlash was so strong that city staff forced the applicant to pull the project before it could be reviewed by the Urban Design Panel on April 18th. Those opposed had no trouble conveying their concerns; the building was too tall, the nearby retail uses would be inappropriate on this block, and, most of all, there were fears renters would bring a criminal element to their neighbourhood.

Based on that knowledge, we wrote a post about the event. It ended up receiving over 1,000 views, led to some hate mail, and resulted in more than a few clicks to the application’s feedback page. Though we cannot see who clicked that link, what they said, or even if they actually submitted comment, we assume they played a role in convincing city staff to not reject this proposal.

Changes in response to feedback.

Now, a few months later, the building has returned, albeit with the elimination of its sole floor of retail space, along with roughly 15 thousand square feet of rental housing. Despite having been split in two, now with angled rooflines to relate better to the neighbourhood, the proposal still aims to reach the high environmental standards of a passive house design.

Ultimately, none of that was good enough for those opposed to it, as they have found a new reason to justify their hostility; the destruction of the existing homes. While we do not believe everyone in opposition is worried about renters coming to their block, our first experience at the second open house certainly revealed many of them are.

When I walked in, I noticed two members of city staff were trying to calm a rather irate individual near the sign-in table. Managing to raise their voice over the noise of the large crowd, they ranted that rental housing was incompatible with this community. They felt it was inappropriate for the area, and was the result of foreigners coming to Vancouver with large bags of money.

After meeting up with Darren, I learned the reason why so many staff were focused on the needs of this individual. Apparently they had recently caused an altercation, which started when they called a supporter of theses homes a developer shill. In response, their target asked when they had last rented a home. That simple question so enraged this person that security was forced to step in and pull them aside.

It made sense that this person later sat with an individual with a recognizable hat, in a group who was the most vocal of the opposition. While these members would occasionally speak up, they spent most of their time occupying one of the two tables set up for people to write feedback forms. That said, they represented the minority of the roughly 175 people who attended the meeting.

In fact, many spoke in favour of the application, often revealing a generational divide. For instance, complaints that street parking in the area has worsened over the last 40 years were countered with claims that the Adanac Bike Corridor, and 95 B-Line meant even less parking was needed. Many young people also bemoaned the loss of the retail space, but were happy much of the housing was preserved.

Left – December 2017 Version -Source / Right October 2018 Version -Source

Given the extensive reporting about this project, I wondered if I would see any reporters in the crowd. Instead, the face I recognized was not one from a news desk, but rather city council. I was pleased to see that, free from the commitments of office, Hector Bremner has chosen to keep up his advocacy for more affordable housing, and was genuine in that belief.

Of course, many may not agree with all of his positions, but it still proves how important community feedback really is. Whether you have written in previously about this application, or if it is the first time you have heard about it, you can see your feedback really matters. So, make sure to write in with your comments about this version here.

Changes from the previous (December 2017) version

73 Rental Homes; (decreased from 77)

Studio apartment – 30 (increased from 0)

1 Bedroom – 15 (decreased from 56)

2 Bedroom – 19 (increased from 9)

3 Bedroom – 9 (decreased from 12)

A proposed floor area of 4,964 sq. m.; (decreased from 7,093 sq. m.)

A floor space ratio (FSR) of 2.07; (decreased from 2.96)

All commercial floor space eliminated (decreased from ~739.96 sq. m.)

Building height 12.8 m (fronting Renfrew Street) (decreased from 17.2 m.)

and 16.7 m (fronting the lane); (decreased from 21.1 m.)

40 car parking spaces; (decreased from 81)

133 bicycle parking spaces. (increased from 113)

Note: A previous version of this post incorrectly listed the building height fronting Renfrew Street as as 36.6 m (decreased from 56.4 m.)