Link to video clip of DNV Council's regular meeting on Monday, October 7th. below. You can watch the public engagement session at the beginning of the clip and agenda 9 at 57 minutes into the meeting when DNV planners are explaining their concepts and after that the council session.
It looks like we are at general height of 5 to 8 stories and 12 stories at strategic locations and not 16 as previously intended.
Concerns with traffic, public transit issues, a sustained 'village' feel with the increased density, and a neighbourhood that stays in tune with it's natural surroundings as well as 'renewal' seemed to remain the priorities with Lynn Valley residents.
17 comments:
As I wrote to our Mayor today, many kudos to Council for showing some real leadership and starting to move the revival of Lynn Valley ahead.
With an election only a year away this is (by contemporary political standards) a remarkably brave move.
And thank God in Heaven that we're not being forced to forgo yet another round of public consultations!
The savings in cookies and Powerpoint handouts alone should keep at least a couple of soccer fields alive.
The question now is how many more stores will fold in the Lynn Valley Centre before approvals are granted and construction can begin.
We're currently at five storefronts, plus Zellers, sitting empty.
And what of Safeway?
Safeway has their own plans. Given that they own the land on which the store sits, with this decision, they likely have some idea of what will fly.
If you were a business would you stay at the Lynn Valley Mall? If you were a business would you sign a lease with the Lynn Valley Mall?
Of course not. The ideation that the mall is dead and to use that as an excuse for densification is beyond contempt.
Pleas explain yourself, Anon 1:43pm. How do you propose to keep businesses in the mall?
one of two ways, through a free market or the District could create a market much like the city did for the LEC by passing bylaws. One comes at a cost to the taxpayer while the other does not
You think the taxpayers should subsidize the mall?
Why on earth should tax payers subsidize the mall!? An why should the retailers subsidize the desires of those who don't want growth in the town centre?! If they can't make a living, they'll go elsewhere and the mall and town centre will deteriorate even further!
Question is why on earth should tax payers subsidize the LEC?
What has the LEC got to do with the Lynn Valley Town Centre? Stay on topic or ask the blog owner to start a discussion on the LEC for you.
Bosa owns the Lynn Valley Mall and as such has control over who leases its property. It is no accident that some leases were not renewed and that the "uncertainty" of the mall does not bode well for new tenants.
To use the developer-driven failing mall and "revitalization is needed" as an excuse for Lynn Valleyites to approve height in buildings is simply bullying and coercion.
They could always use the “affordable housing” or “ daycare space” excuse. It seems to work well in the city.
I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that there has been a confusion between density and overall growth. Density is just the form that growth takes. A high rise is one form that density takes. People in Lynn Valley were largely appalled by the extra population, loss of views and added traffic of these particular proposed 'beehive' forms in the LVC. I believe they were, however, conflating a high rise form with higher growth and a low rise form with lower growth. Nothing is further from the truth.
You see, just because there aren't likely to be any 34 story condo towers at the Safeway property now, does not mean the 'sustainability' police are not at work demanding that the District's growth targets be adhered to ( else be sued by the region as is happening to Langley ).
If you were worried about traffic, crowding, parking or loss of vistas, your battle is not over with this decision. Unfortunately, it is just beginning since the council has specifically endorsed, via a public process, ways in which developers can build higher than 12 storeys, and these are to be dealt with on a case by case basis, one at a time. The 'no high rises in Lynn Valley' citizens will have to devote a lot MORE time to presenting through the 'public process' over and over the reasons why people are not supportive of each new high rise development proposal. Best they be retired from the workplace to have this kind of time available.
Listening to the video of the council meeting, it was somewhat shocking to me, how soon after the vote to adopt the 'Framework' that the conversation moved to INFILL.
You see, if the development police don't get growth and density one way, they will try to get it another.
What ACTUALLY is needed is for the OCP and its growth targets, to be put to PUBLIC REFERENDUM.
Then and only then, would the council have the mandate from the residents of the District to pursue densification and growth at the levels prescribed in the OCP.
The OCP has never gone to referendum and in my humble opinion, it is because the council knows that the public won't agree to add 20,000 people and the creation of 4 mini-cities in the heart of the north shore.
Lee, you think a 1% growth rate is so dramatic that it should go to a referendum?
1%
20,000 over 20 years is ~1% growth rate for the DNV.
Also, you need to do a little more reading about the Langley situation. The region is suing Langley to STOP densification, not FORCE densification.
Again, this 1% growth rate for the DNV is a farce. Just ask anyone in Lynn Valley.
Oops...perhaps the chopping down of all the homes in Seylynn might have contributed to the stats over the last 20 years?
Average it out and Lynn Valley has accepted more than our share of density.
Units maybe, but has the population really grown?
Bosa bought this mall with the idea the could jam tower down our throat just like they have every where .I wish council had told them no development on this site for at least ten years.It would have fixed their greedy ways a bit .The only reason the mall is none viable is because Bosa made sure it wasn't to further their case for redevelopment.
Post a Comment