Yesterday’s approval of controversial 57-storey tower plan has some West Enders up in arms
It can’t have been a great moment for opponents of a 57-storey West End tower proposal, when the controversial Westbank development was approved by City officials July 26.
Despite the controversy and a large number of Vancouver residents speaking about the project, leading the discussions into a second day in council chambers, the project on the Burrard and Nelson intersection was given the green light.
This architecturally iconic tower, designed by Bing Thom Architects, would be made up of 311 market-rate condo units and a second seven-storey tower made up of 61 social-housing units.
The project is being proposed by Westbank in partnership with the First Baptist Church of Vancouver, which owns the parking lot at the back of the church that is the proposed site. The project includes integration with the church to provide additional community program spaces, offices and daycare in additional to residential units. The church would also receive seismic upgrades as a part of the redevelopment.
But all this was not nearly enough for those local residents who felt that the project would do more harm than good.
Aside from increased traffic fears, many of the objections seemed to centre around the physical space that this vast, dual-tower structure will take up, and the corresponding blocking of views and light. In particular, residents of the neighbouring chi-chi tower the Patina on Barclay Street, located behind the Robert Lee YMCA on Burrard, are feeling very aggrieved.
They say that homes on the south side of their building, facing the proposed Westbank tower, currently enjoy fabulous southerly views and lots of light and sunshine – much of which would be blocked by the new tower. One objector reportedly said that it would make the south-side Patina apartments very dark and “cave-like” – which also suggests the new tower would decrease their own homes’ market value.
But Mayor Gregor Robertson seems fairly bullish that these residents are overstating the issue. At council chambers yesterday, he said, “Certainly some light and airspace is lost to the south to some of those units, but I'm hopeful it's not as bad as it may look.”
Whether it’s bad or not, we’re talking about a few dozen West End residents being affected by this problem. And that has to be offset by the benefits that such a tower would bring. Not only would it help with the supply of market-rate condos, but it would also provide below-market rental housing, new child-care facilities and an expansion of community programs for seniors, youth, immigrants and the homeless shelter that the church runs. All of which would help many hundreds of people.
So the question is, do existing residents – of any downtown building – have a right to have their views and light protected from new development, no matter how much benefit that new development may offer?
Keeping aside protected view cones (which are a whole other discussion issue), I’d argue that they do not. Personally, I think it’s more important to increase housing supply and offer new social housing units and community programs for residents in need, than protect the views and light enjoyed by a relative few luxury condo owners.
Sure, it sucks for owners who bought and paid for a condo with a great view and lots of light, only to have that taken away later. But if that view and light is through the airspace directly above a downtown parking lot, any savvy buyer should have realized that there was no guarantee that space would remain undeveloped. I personally wouldn’t even entertain the idea of buying a home with an outlook over a prime developable lot, especially downtown, as there’s no way of knowing what you’ll get there in the future.
We have a “buyer beware” system in our real estate market. I guess the south-side Patina owners are now finding that out the hard way.
