Skip to main content

A rendering shows the proposed controversial tower in Vancouver’s Chinatown, proposed by Ryan Beedie's development company.

Renu Bakshi Communications

A new tower proposed for Vancouver's rapidly changing Chinatown has been redesigned to include $6-million worth of seniors' housing and fit better with the historic community.

But it's unclear whether that will be enough to appease the wide variety of groups passionate about the area, some of whom fear the neighbourhood is being overrun by hipster restaurants, condos and out-of-sync new buildings with little in return for existing residents.

Houtan Rafii, vice-president of residential development at Beedie Living, says the company made some major adjustments, and he hopes that has changed some people's opinions.

Story continues below advertisement

"We are re-engineering the dollars and reducing our expectations," said Mr. Rafii, whose company's new proposal was presented in an open house earlier this week. The building's total square footage has gone down slightly, and the proposed 120-foot building will now have apartments for seniors instead of commercial space on the second floor.

It also has been redesigned to look less like one unified block and more like a cluster of different buildings – a style that fits in with Vancouver's hodge-podge look in older areas, where builders of the early 20th century put up small buildings with varying heights and materials.

The original proposal from Beedie, put forward last year, generated an uproar.

It came on the heels of three other condo projects on Main Street that were developed quickly after the city passed a new neighbourhood plan in 2011 allowing taller buildings at the south end of Chinatown.

The Beedie land is at the corner of Keefer and Columbia Streets, near a corner known as the Keefer Triangle, where there's a monument to Chinese-Canadian war veterans.

Mr. Rafii said the company "is taking the brunt" of opposition that started with the first three projects.

But, he acknowledged, it also had to go through some education about the community.

Story continues below advertisement

"We've learned lots. Chinatown is a very valuable asset and it's exceedingly complicated."

City planners, responding to a near revolt among community groups and prominent Chinatown defenders when the Beedie building was first proposed, held a series of meetings over the last year to get public input on what should change.

The city's assistant planning director, Kevin McNaney, said Beedie had offered to provide cash in the first project for community benefits, but when it became clear that what people wanted was seniors' housing, that's what planners pushed for.

"Twenty-five units was what the building could support," said Mr. McNaney.

Mr. Rafii said that the Chinese immigrant-support society SUCCESS will be managing the units, which have a value of between $6-million and $7-million.

But SUCCESS director Queenie Choo said that hasn't been finalized yet.

Story continues below advertisement

"We are still looking at the agreement because we need to make sure we can afford it," said Ms. Choo, whose society is going to manage 25 other units of housing at another condo project nearby built by Westbank.

Ms. Choo said the 25 units doesn't match the demand, but, she said, "it's better than nothing."

"At least we hope to chip a little piece of the elephant. And we can't afford the whole building."

However, that's what some Chinatown advocates say is needed – a whole building of seniors' housing.

Kathryn Lennon, who speaks for a coalition of youth-dominated groups in Chinatown, said "twenty-five is just not enough. That is not meeting the need."

She and other young people organized their own open house Tuesday in advance of the city's open house to advocate for a project with no market condos at all.

"A 2011 study said that 3,300 more units were needed for seniors. We can do better than this," said Ms. Lennon.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.