Tag Archives: Onni

Density for sale $34.88 per square foot

Source: Decision on Onni’s bowling bid delayed 

From the North Shore News Jun 21st, comment from Voices:

The ‘over-excavated’ space will be a commercial venture, probably leased to an operator.   Bargain price: $275,000 for 7,884 sq ft = $34.88 per square foot.  Another 4-3 vote with the developer-funded slate voting in favour.

 

 

 

 

Who gets Onni amenity?

Who gets Onni amenity?.

 

.

THE question over who should get first dibs on roughly $10 million in affordable housing and childcare space the City of North Vancouver accrued through density bonusing on Onni’s Safeway site project is up for debate.

Council was prepared to vote Monday night on a motion to put out a call for expressions of interest from the non-profit sector to run the community assets, but a deep schism at the council table quickly emerged.

Read more: http://www.nsnews.com/business/gets+Onni+amenity/8579898/story.html#ixzz2XLGLUJxw

 

.

Letter from Stella Jo Dean to Editor, NS News

March 5 2013 (unpublished as of today)

 

Dear Editor

 

RE: LETTER TO EDITOR FROM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE  DEC 19

 

As a lifetime member of the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce I would like to respond to their stance on the Onni development at 13th and Lonsdale. I want to be on record that I am not against development, however Onni is proposing  to put up a 90 foot tall, 78,000 square foot commercial building that they will own and not be stratified. In order to obtain this they are requesting a gift from the city of 53,000 square feet of density plus they are proposing to purchase an additional 25,000 square feet at a paltry $40 square foot totaling one million dollars. What an extraordinary deal for the developer to receive 78,000 square feet of density for one million dollars at the expense of the taxpayers of NVC. If there is a business demand for this commercial space, why does Onni feel it is entitled to a city subsidy.

 

Onni’s 2010 proposal called for 3 towers of 180, 120 and 120 feet tall, which council and citizens soundly rejected. Onni’s current proposal is misleading as it calls for only 2 towers of 240 and 180 feet, plus a commercial building of 90 feet.  To me this is still 3 towers totaling more floors than their original rejected proposal.  The Chamber seems to have no objection to this excessive density which will only make the traffic and noise pollution at this location even worse.  City council should have the courage to reject Onni’s proposal as they did in 2010.

 

Stella Jo Dean OC

FormerCity Councillor

Thank you letter re Onni vote

Subject: Thank you for your support…
 
Pam Bookham, Guy Heywood, Ron Clark,
 
Thank you for your support and putting forward the issues and concerns that affect the people who live in the area of the Onni Safeway site.
 
Your insight and courage for standing up for your opinion, concerns of the people and the future impact in the area were well appreciated.
 
I witness people that have never been to a Council Meeting or got involved with City or Municipal matters before, your actions were a real education for them and myself.  It was a learning curve for all of us, we now appreciate the  challenges of your position.
 
Thank you, keep up the Good work.
 
Sincerely,
 
Vic Jang
 
 
.

Letter from Joan Peters to NS News re Onni approval

The following is unpublished as of March 13th:   
I should have learned my lesson years ago when I was on the committee to try to save North Van High School.  Made up of school board staff, trustees, NVHS teachers and parents, we met regularly for over a year until me were told the property had been  sold for $1 Million to the provincial government for a new courthouse.  Those negotiations had obviously not taken place in the couple of weeks since our last meeting but not a hint had ever been dropped to our committee.  Everyone else had been paid for their time spent on this committee but the parent/members had volunteered time from busy lives.  We were justified, I think, to feel we had been used and had wasted valuable hours.
    So — jump ahead 34 years to the Onni development at 13th and Lonsdale.  There was enough public unhappiness about this proposal that several citizens and citizen groups stepped up to the plate to present an opposition.  Remember the weather last November?  Several residents stood out on Lonsdale, in the pouring rain, gathering nearly 2000 signatures against the development in the form of two petitions which were presented to council on  November 19.  NV City Voices created a website which posted letters, newspaper articles, notices of meetings to inform and generate interest.
    Onni initiated a slur campaign against any opposition, including two city councillors, on radio, TV and local newspapers.  Of course, success meant millions of dollars profit to them and they spent several thousand on public promotion – something the citizen opposition couldn’t match.
    Now they have won.  But in winning they have left a large swath of citizens now very much aware of the huge loopholes in our local government system — loopholes which enable future developers to bypass the OCP, pay a pittance for “Uplift Value” and to make vague promises  in order to acquire extra density and height.
    Some of us in opposition won’t give up.  Some of us still believe open, honest government is worth striving for.
    Only time will tell …….
Joan Peters
.

North Vancouver City gives Onni highrise approval

North Vancouver City gives Onni highrise approval.

We’re not sure Councillor Buchanan realizes that the childcare will only accommodate 37 children and provide possibly 10/12 units of “special needs” not “affordable” housing.  No one can dispute that there is a need, but is this the best use of the sale of the extra density of almost 100,000 square feet?

No mention of the impassioned speech by former Councillor Stella Jo Dean, urging Council not to support this giveaway.

Quoting Clr Buchanan in part:

Coun. Linda Buchanan noted that there is a tremendous need for childcare space and affordable housing, regardless of whether other levels of government are proactive in offering it.

“These are people that live in our community now, and for us to sit and wait and collect cash for some piece of land that we think we’re going to find in our very small five-square miles to develop some day ourselves, or for the province or the federal government to step forward, we are wishing on a dream. It’s not going to happen. I do believe there is a responsibility within our community to support the people who live here who aren’t as fortunate as some of the rest of us,” she said. “When I think about all these benefits, it is a balance. With these amenities, the benefits far outweigh the density that some are opposed to.”

Read more: http://www.nsnews.com/news/North+Vancouver+City+gives+Onni+highrise+approval/8091430/story.html#ixzz2NSOnYN5f

.

Open letter to Onni, Council and the Community

From:  Benjamin Woodyatt,  North Van Urban Forum founder
(with permission)

An Open Letter to Onni, to North Van City Council, to the Wider Community of the City of North Vancouver.

To whom it may concern:

I’d like to say first and foremost that I don’t envy the position of Council right now.  Underscoring this entire conversation is the glaring fact that the Safeway site, as it stands, is perhaps one of the ugliest, most dated, run-down and misused urban locales on the lower mainland.  There is no question in my mind that the site needs to be developed.  Onni have indicated that if this development proposal fails, then they may sit on their hands, leaving the site in its current state of decay for years to come.  Or worse, build us a commercial only, bunker-style site that is fully provisioned within OCP limits, depriving us not just of any perfunctory review by design panels, but also of any community amenity benefits whatsoever.

What a truly awful position for the community, not to mention Council, to be in – choiced with standing in support of a design not on its merits alone, not because it is necessarily the best use of space for our community, but because the alternative is demonstrably worse.  I was told that to speak at the public hearing I would need to sign my name either for or against the project.  I am decidedly neutral, precisely because of this no-man’s land, ‘between a rock and a hard place’ position in which we find ourselves.

For me, this is not about density.  To use a recent quote from former Vancouver planner Brent Toderian that I have used much in recent weeks: “It’s not about height dogma, it’s about an eye for great design.”  And where is the great design?  With all due respect to the architect, to me this development is lacklustre and uninspired.  It is bland – it is a blockish, visually uninteresting, cookie cutter mass of buildings with a glass obsession.

That said, great vibrant street fronts don’t care about towers.  They are born at a pedestrian level.  Great neighbourhoods care about how a building meets the ground.  My organisation, the North Van Urban Forum, was born, in part, out of conversations held while sitting in the Cafe for Contemporary Art, staring across Esplanade and ruminating on the wasted opportunities of the Pinnacle Hotel street frontage – the anti-visionary decisions that led to a modern fortress in our midst.  Dead street fronts have no place in modern planning.  Thoughtlessness about the pedestrian experience should not be tolerated in our developments.  This is why I am largely ambivalent towards conversations about parking, and traffic impacts, and vehicle entrances.  Other than safety, and aesthetics, I find it very difficult to care about such things.  The time for the dominance of the automobile in decision making around developments is rightfully over.

When we met with Onni a couple of weeks ago to discuss their changes, I acknowledged that it is very late in the game to be making substantive design amendments.  I urged them to throw anything left that they have at streetscaping.  At pavement design.  At encouraging lively, animated street fronts that will distract the eye, and lead us to be excited about this town centre opportunity.  If I were on Council, or if I worked with City staff, this would be one of the strongest messages that I would make now to Onni, and indeed to all developers.  Aesthetics matter.  Permeability matters.  The pedestrian experience matters.  Sidewalk design and streetscaping matters.  Being a good community-oriented actor matters.

Onni speaks about the risk they are taking with this, and other developments.  Of course the potential exists to lose money.  But developers are not in this game out of the goodness of their hearts.  They make a bid, a proposal because they think it makes financial sense.  They stand to profit.  If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be in the game.  So our job, as citizens, as council members, as city staff members, is to say to all developers – okay, if we let you into our community, if we let you re-shape our skylines, if we let you change the shape and character of our city in your quest for business growth – what will you give us in exchange?  What opportunities will you give us for improving our city?  What enhancements will you make to the character of our built environment?  How will you beautify our city?

Being a good community actor is about respect.  It is about respecting the community values of the places in which you operate.  It is about respecting democratic processes.  It is about respecting duly elected representatives and not publicly encouraging the populace to vote against them if they voice criticisms of you.  It is about doing everything in your power to ensure transparency, honesty, and to mitigate the opportunities for such criticisms in the first place.

We must, however, hold equally stringent standards to ourselves.  We, the public, bear a burden of responsibility also.  Onni stated to us when we met that they had been actively encouraged to significantly exceed the OCP by City staff.  There are clearly some who believe that the only way that we can pay for amenities is by getting our developers to pay for it with the scale of their developments.  While I do agree that there’s probably some validity to this argument, it is unfortunate that Onni receives the brunt of the community backlash for putting forward a proposal that so exceeds our OCP guidelines, when this is clearly also the preference of our City officials.  It is unfortunate that there is such a clear disconnect between City Hall, members of the community – and indeed from one end of Council to the other.

To the public: we must always keep an open mind. We cannot resist change simply because it is change.  We cannot viscerally attack the ideologies of others that exist in our community, simply because we have differences.  Unless we are wearing pink to combat cancer or bullying, I do not believe that colour coded displays of solidarity for or against a project are helpful to facilitating dialogue, and certainly don’t further productive, constructive conversation.

As an engaged citizen I regret that we have reached such a stage in our community debates, where vitriol, from all quarters, is allowed to flourish.  I regret that we have had to expend so much energy to encourage transparency, to defend free speech, to denounce or to declare claims of manipulation in public processes.

I regret that we have, as a community, felt so threatened that we have questioned the motives of our neighbours, our business leaders, our politicians, instead of getting on with the job of debating the merits or pitfalls of the proposals before us.

To Onni, to all developers, to council members: I would ask that you please recognise that our passions run high because with every development proposal that comes before us, our community is changed.  The character and shape of our neighbourhoods is altered, the legacy of those that came before us stands to be erased or diminished.  We ask that everything you propose, design, approve or amend, now and in the future, be proposed, designed, approved or amended because you think it is brilliant.  Because it is in the best interests of the community.  Because it is the best that you can do.  Let that be your guiding principle.

Sincerely,
Benjamin Woodyatt
.