Mission community association irked by condo project

Former alderman lobbies for condo tower on edge of cathedral district
Riley Brandt

An inner-city community association is steamed after a developer hired the area’s former alderman to lobby city hall for a sleek luxury condo tower in Mission’s cathedral district.

Liv Urban Developments Ltd. plans to build a 17-storey, one-unit-per-floor tower near the Elbow River at 18th Ave. and First St. S.E. — “a sliver of a building,” says Liv Urban CEO Dan Bowman. To get the building site rezoned to more than double the allowable building height for the site — a move approved by city council earlier this month — Bowman hired former alderman Madeleine King as a consultant.

Natasha Pashak of the Cliff Bungalow-Mission Community Association says the community has been kept in the dark about the developer’s plans. She argues that the planned building is too tall and too close to St. Mary’s Cathedral, which is about 300 metres west of the building site. (St. Mary’s High School sits between the two sites.)

Pashak also decries King’s involvement in the process. “It’s dirty to me,” she says. “They’ve been lobbying for two years. They’ve been meeting with aldermen for two years about it.” King first learned of the project when she was an alderman and she currently sits on the city’s planning commission, along with the project’s architect, Jeremy Sturgess.

Both of them recused themselves from the planning commission’s May vote on the Liv Urban project, but Pashak is still unimpressed that a former alderman is lobbying for a project the community association doesn’t want. The original maximum zoning height for the site was 23 metres for commercial projects; it’s now been changed to 52 metres for residential.

To accommodate the project, city council also amended the Mission area redevelopment plan (ARP) — a community development blueprint that council approved in 2006. “We have to be included in the discussion with the city about changing our ARP,” says Pashak. “We don’t want any developer to feel they can come in and push a building through without respecting the rules.”

In the last civic election, King narrowly lost to Ald. John Mar. The dispute over the tower once again pitted King against Mar, but this time King was the victor. Mar sided with the community association but couldn’t convince the rest of council to delay the decision to rezone and amend the ARP. “I think that if I’d have been able to work with the community and the developer a little bit longer, we might have been able to come to an agreement,” says Mar.

Mar says he “inherited” the Liv Urban issue from King when he took over Ward 8. “That’s what you call irony, isn’t it. That was not lost on me.” He adds that he can understand why the community association is unhappy with King’s involvement. “Unfortunately there’s nothing we can do about that. She’s a private citizen… and is utilizing her previous experience in a way that’s time-honoured.”

King says the community association's criticisms of her involvement are “upsetting and disappointing,” adding that her knowledge of this “one-of-a-kind” project is beneficial to the city. “It actually helps for better decision making,” she says.

The project site sits on the northeast corner of the cathedral district, an area of Mission marked by pathways, the riverbank, as well as architecturally and historically significant buildings. The condo site also borders the Beltline, and overlooks a busy downtown street that turns into southbound Macleod Trail. “Out of all of Mission, I can’t see one property where it makes more sense to have a 17-storey building,” says Bowman.

He also says the city has put him through “amazing” hoops in approving plans for the 2,500-square-foot condos. He first presented the plan to King in 2006 and has yet to get building and development approvals. He also points out that he’s scaled the building down from the original plan of 23 storeys.

Plans for the building integrate the condo with a nearby park notorious for criminal activity and blend in with nearby pathways. Bowman believes the project will improve the area. “While I appreciate the Mission community’s interest to keep a great community — to keep value there and to preserve its historical significance — I’m not sure that they’re always looking at the true merits of the proposals put before them,” he says.

Father Greg Coupal, rector of St. Mary’s Cathedral, says the Liv Urban project hasn’t been on his radar. He only learned of it in June. “My gut reaction is that’s an awfully tall building for that space,” says Coupal. “On the plus side, it might give us some parishioners.”

Bowman says it will be “a couple years” before construction begins.

 


Comments: 7

betheed wrote:

More parishioners? Didn't the article say that it's a 17-storey building with one condo per floor? That's like 20 or so new parishioners. Hardly the sort of density you'd expect from such a large building.

on Jul 30th, 2009 at 9:56am Report Abuse

Agent666 wrote:

Two things are really needed: municipal campaign finance reform and a population cap.

Developers (along with unions and business groups) are major donors to aldermanic and mayoral coffers. This has to end. There should be outright bans on corporate and union donations, and a ~$1000 donation cap, as in Federal politics. With the 'consensus' (i.e., non-partisan) system of municipal politics, the result is a bunch of crooks scratching each other's backs.

We also need to face the fact that endless population growth is neither desireable, nor inevitable. As has been proposed in the UK, a hard cap on our country's population--along with an outright ban on the development of greenfield, or agricultural land--needs to be brought in.

Densification can be just as nasty as sprawl, as both aggrevate traffic, increase infrastructure costs, polution and crime, and stress freshwater and food supplies.

on Aug 3rd, 2009 at 1:12am Report Abuse

fang wrote:

ACS,

I totally agree the campaign finance reform is needed at the municipal level.

on Aug 3rd, 2009 at 8:18am Report Abuse

JFMItchell wrote:

Mission, Cliff Bungalow have long argued for 4 story density that blocks the whole site, is of poor quality, and adds little in the way of landscaping.

Many communities in Vancouver mix density with open landscaped sites resulting in much better neighborhoods. The views of a minority of narrow minded activists results in the most mediocre of neighborhoods, and once again Calgary loses.

Hopefully their is more courage amongst our planners and Alderman.

on Aug 3rd, 2009 at 12:21pm Report Abuse

Con o sewer wrote:

Great. Now we will have more "density". No chance of urban blight in our city. But who knows, maybe St. Mary's will get a few good paying parishinors. But what about that freeking big hole on 21st Ave?

I love the way developers pitch, "we will bring renewed quailty of life to the urban core."

on Aug 5th, 2009 at 8:48am Report Abuse

Con o sewer wrote:

This is from "Business Excellence" Gary Sutton should stick to building bungalows. This hole is a disgrace. Strategic has dropped the ball. So has the city. I HATE this freekin ugly, dangerous and debris strewn mess.


"Strategic has had a mountain to climb in overcoming this local distrust and cynicism, but it has now reached the stage where the community looks upon Strategic as the company that has “filled the hole in Mission.” And it has achieved this by spending time and resources in working closely with the local business and residential communities.

on Aug 5th, 2009 at 8:54am Report Abuse

Bunk wrote:

I strongly object to the notion of trying to recreate historical styles to fit into some theme of the neighbourhood, especially when said building is not really adjacent to anything but grass and parking lots.

Is it a good thing that the ARP rules would have precluded something like Livurban from coming along on that specific site? I understand the objection to the process, but in the end, perhaps it is a good thing the exception was made. I think in this case its inclusion into a cathedral district (whatever the heck that means - are buildings supposed to be of mid-20th century modernist gothic revivalism or whatever style the cathedral is?) was ill thought out in the ARP.

Sometimes bad rules should be broken when something great comes along which clearly demonstrates why that rule is bad. Whether the rule is 2 years old or 20 doesn't seem that relevant. I don't think developers should be allowed to come in and just bully their way into by-passing the rules, but if a sound and supportable planning rationale can be presented as to why a rule really doesn't make good sense, I think that should be listened to and decided on. If this proposal had come along on 4th street and 22nd avenue, clearly changes to accommodate this development wouldn't be supportable, but at 18th avenue and Macleod a development like this makes sense.

Please read this article from Canadian architect on the issue of historicism in Calgary:

http://www.cdnarchitect.com/issues/ISarticle.asp?aid=1000217108

on Aug 5th, 2009 at 3:38pm Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © Fast Forward Weekly 1995-2012

About Us Contact Us Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use