Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of Current Planning in consultation with the Director of Financial Planning

SUBJECT:

Gastown Heritage Management Plan

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Council recognized the value of conserving the unique heritage precincts of Gastown and Chinatown in 1971, and requested the Province to designate the lands within the areas as historic sites.

In 1974, Council adopted the HA-2 Zoning District Schedule for Gastown and established the Historic Area Advisory Board (now Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee) to advise Council.

On July 28, 1998, Council confirmed principles to provide general guidance to actions and planning in the Downtown Eastside, Chinatown, Gastown and Strathcona, which include encouraging legitimate commercial activity, improving conditions at the street level, improving existing SROs, reducing crime, and helping community people to find allies and seek a common future.

Council supports heritage conservation through policies and guidelines that allow for relaxations and bonuses when heritage buildings are conserved.

Council supported the development of a Gastown Heritage Management Plan and adopted terms of reference for the work in December 1999.

SUMMARY AND PURPOSE
Over the past two years staff, consultants and the community have been actively working on a program to facilitate the conservation of heritage resources and the economic revitalization of Gastown. Recognizing that current economic conditions are not favourable in the area, the plan calls for administrative and financial incentives to help kick start economic activity through the rehabilitation and enhancement of Gastown's heritage buildings and public realm. The incentives include facade improvement grants, property tax relief, and bonus density as well as a streamlining of administrative incentives including the adoption of design guidelines. A number of complementary measures and major work items have been or are nearing completion that, in combination with the direction proposed by the Gastown Heritage Management Plan (GHMP), provide an important contribution and comprehensive approach to revitalization efforts for Gastown.

BACKGROUND
Gastown is the birthplace of Vancouver and contains the city's largest concentration of buildings from the turn of the 20th century. The existing built form of Gastown is a reflectionof its historic development, both in its urban form and streetscape. Buildings vary in width and height, from one to thirteen storeys, with most in the two to four storey range presenting a characteristic "sawtooth" appearance to the block profile. There is a strong historic pattern of architectural compositions and consistent use of materials.

In 1971, Gastown and Chinatown were designated as historic areas by the Province and considerable public and private investment occurred in the rehabilitation of buildings and implementation of local street improvements still evident today. Rehabilitation of buildings formerly used for manufacturing and warehousing to retail uses on the ground floor and office or residential in some of the upper storeys was primarily driven by buoyant market conditions.

Since the late 1980s, most projects have required additional density and relaxations to make them viable. In some cases, one and two storey additions were constructed that still respect the scale and character of the heritage buildings, but in other cases additions have been overwhelming and adversely impacted the heritage character. While these additions responded to economic conditions, and were permitted under existing zoning, the result has been a gradual erosion of the heritage character of the area which gives Gastown its distinctiveness. An example of this is the north side of the unit block Alexander Street where buildings varied in height from 2-6 storeys and now most of the block has been built out to the 75 foot height limit. The result has been a conflict between heritage conservation and economic revitalization objectives.

In 1993 Council amended the Transfer of Density Policy to facilitate heritage preservation in the Central Area. Chinatown was added as an area from which density could be transferred in 1994 but Gastown is still excluded. Despite this, Council has in the past three years supported density bonuses for transfer off site on a case by case basis. Three projects (211 Columbia Street, 55 Water Street and 310 Water Street) have been approved and another approved in principle (345 Water Street). In these instances the provision of an incentive has made projects economically viable and resulted in a more authentic approach to heritage conservation. While this has proven successful, there is concern about the overall impacts of relying on transfer of density as the primary incentive. Furthermore, economic conditions in Gastown are difficult due to several factors including the impacts of the illegal drug trade and related safety and security concerns; weak demand for retail, office, and residential uses in Gastown; the additional complexity and expense of renovating heritage buildings relative to the rents commanded under current conditions; and the difficulty associated with accommodating a wide range of tenant types in heritage buildings.Combined, these elements have created a circumstance which has made the objectives of economic activity and heritage conservation very difficult to achieve.

DISCUSSION

Gastown Heritage Management Plan
The focus of staff and community efforts has been directed to the completion of the heritage management plan. Staff recommendations in this report are taken largely from directions contained in consultant studies prepared by Spaxman Consulting, Robert Lemon and Don Luxton (the "Spaxman Report") and by Coriolis Consulting (the "Coriolis Report") and input from the community. The Spaxman Report has a strong focus on heritage conservation, deeming retention of the sawtooth profile as fundamental to the conservation of Gastown. It is consistent with widely accepted heritage principles including those emerging from the federal government's Historic Places Initiative. The Spaxman Report calls for implementation of administrative and financial incentives to encourage the rehabilitation of heritage resources in Gastown. The Coriolis Report was commissioned to independently review and comment on the economic implications of the Spaxman Report and to provide recommendations on priority actions to facilitate revitalization of the area. Staff and community groups reviewed the reports in detail and feel the majority of the actions should be implemented.

However, staff and the community are concerned with some recommendations, particularly those perceived to limit existing rights. Staff are proposing a Plan that will balance the multiple objectives for the area having regard to providing more immediate encouragement for economic activity, ensuring there is no loss of existing rights, and that an appropriate level of heritage conservation is achieved. In addition, some of the consultant recommendations have significant resourcing and budget implications. These are discussed in greater detail below. Detailed staff comments on the actions recommended in the Spaxman Report are in Appendix D.

Key Recommendations

1. A Vision for Heritage Management in Gastown
The Spaxman Report recommends the following vision statement be adopted to guide heritage management in Gastown:

This vision was developed in consultation with, and is broadly supported by, the community. Adoption of the vision would provide guidance and direction to current and future heritage initiatives for the area.

2. Heritage Incentives and Maintaining Existing Rights
The GHMP is proposing that owners be given the opportunity to apply for heritage incentives to assist with building conservation and rehabilitation. Alternatively owners could develop under existing zoning provisions.

To clarify these opportunities, sites in Gastown have been grouped into three categories:
· Heritage sites are those with buildings listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register (108 sites);
· Non-heritage sites are those occupied with buildings not listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register (32 sites); and
· Vacant sites have no buildings on them (8 sites).

a) Incentives for Heritage Conservation
Owners of heritage sites will be able to take advantage of a package of incentives for conserving their buildings. In this scenario the following applies:

· Existing building envelope constitutes the outright building envelope allowance for heritage buildings.
· Incentive program to cover shortfall costs for complete building rehabilitation (seismic and life-safety upgrading) including:

· Residual density for shorter buildings determined as the difference between existing built density and 4.5 FSR (the average FSR achieved on approvals since 1990 in Gastown)
would be available for transfer when a complete rehabilitation of the building occurs.
· One additional storey of useable space may be permitted on existing buildings provided it meets the design guidelines and is set back from the principal facade (not visible from the sidewalk directly across the street) and does not exceed the 75 foot height limit.
· Approval of a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) to secure the conservation and ongoing maintenance of the building exterior.

Full details of the incentive program are described below.

The ability to add a storey is intended to ensure there would be opportunities for incremental increases to density within Gastown without destroying the character of the heritage area and allow for maintaining the sawtooth form. Density that is retained on site (e.g. in the form of an addition) would be deducted from any bonus or residual amount granted.

The residual density for shorter buildings is intended as an additional incentive for smaller buildings in the area which may not be able to accommodate additions without significantly altering their heritage character. The Spaxman Report contained a similar recommendation except that the residual density would have been the difference between the existing building and what could be developed within a 40 foot height limit. The staff recommendation provides for slightly more density to be available for transfer as an added encouragement to revitalize and upgrade heritage buildings. The Gastown Business Improvement Society has requested that the residual density amount be increased to 5.5 FSR. This is not supported due to the impact it would have on the amount of density that would have to be accommodated upon transfer from Gastown.

b) Existing Rights Retained
Owners who prefer not to take advantage of incentives (except the Facade Grants which would be available to all heritage buildings) will continue to be able to develop under the existing HA-2 Zoning District Schedule. The existing zoning and the process for discretionary approval under this zoning will not change.

The Spaxman Report would have limited height on vacant and non-heritage sites to 40 feet with the ability to purchase heritage density from within Gastown to reach a maximum 75 feet. While this had some benefit in using up density bonus space, staff felt it would be unfair to owners of these sites and that it would reduce opportunities to add density and needed commercial activity. Furthermore, property owners were opposed to this option, most preferring that existing development rights continue to be available to all properties.

The GBIS has requested that the HA-2 Zoning District Schedule be amended to permit a height of 75 feet on an outright basis. Planning staff have carefully considered this option, however, this would fundamentally deny the sawtooth profile which is an essential historic character defining aspect of Gastown. Owners who wish to seek the 75 foot height limit could do so through the discretionary process.

3. Shaping an Incentive Program
Staff and the community support the consultant recommendations for a 5-year time-limited program of financial incentives to motivate economic activity in the area. It is intended that the incentives would be of immediate assistance to owners. In the future, national incentives will likely be available and together with improved economic conditions in the area the amount of incentives provided by the City could be significantly reduced.

All heritage buildings in Gastown (and Chinatown) would be able to apply for facade improvement grants. Only those completing major upgrades could apply for property tax exemptions and bonus density incentives. The amount of incentive for a major building upgrade to be provided by the City would be based on the "shortfall costs" or the amount required to make a project viable in a restoration and re-use project. Shortfall costs are determined by deducting the costs of the project, land/building and profit from the capital value of the completed project. The consultants and staff recommend continuation of the methodology of using a development proforma analysis to determine the amount of incentive required. The actual amount of each incentive would be determined through site-specific analysis based on objective measures of market values and costs, and it is anticipated that some negotiation of the incentive would be needed to keep these incentives within the available incentive budget allotted annually. Under current economic conditions the estimated shortfall costs are $1.2 million per building on average. This figure has been developed in the Spaxman Report and corroborated by Coriolis and Real Estate Services staff.

Twenty-five of the 108 heritage sites in Gastown are estimated to have had significant upgrades including building code and seismic improvements. Therefore, it is estimated that 83 heritage sites require major upgrades. Currently about one building is upgraded per year. It is estimated that the property tax exemption program in combination with the bonus density could increase this to between 4 and 6 buildings per year. Over 5 years more than 25% of the 83 heritage sites requiring upgrades could be completed.

a) Financial Incentives
There are a number of ways in which financial support can be provided to encourage conservation of heritage buildings in Gastown. It should be noted that when a Federal program (described later in this report) is established, those incentives would be applied first and therefore reduce the amount required from the City. The following outlines two new programs proposed by staff as well as existing tools currently available (primarily density transfers) that can be utilized to provide assistance to building owners in Gastown utilizing incentives authorized by the Vancouver Charter. The key features of the proposed incentive program are:

i) Facade Improvement Capital Grant Program
Section 206.2 of the Vancouver Charter authorizes Council to provide grants for heritage purposes. Using this tool, staff are proposing a program that would provide capital grants to heritage building owners who are prepared to improve the exterior appearance of their buildings, with emphasis on storefronts in order to make retail and commercial uses on the ground floor viable. The program would cover 50% of eligible costs up to a maximum of $50,000 per principal facade. Grants would be subject to a competitive evaluation process for which criteria would be developed and reported back to Council. Owners would be required to enter into a covenant or easement to ensure the restored\rehabilitated facade would be maintained.

During public consultation on the Plan, some property owners suggested a proportional system be implemented that based grants on the size or area of the facade. Staff considered this option but feel that the facade program as outlined should be kept as simple as possible, at least initially, making it easier to understand for property and business owners, as well as for efficiency reasons related to implementation and administration. The annual monitoring report will assess the program, and should modifications be necessary in the future, they will be reported to Council.

It is anticipated that an average of five projects per year would apply for grants and, if each sought the maximum subsidy available ($50,000), it would require a budget of $250,000/year. It is likely that not all buildings would require the maximum grant available. Moreover, it is anticipated that as economic conditions improve in the area the amount of subsidy could be reduced. Therefore, more than five buildings per year could receive grants. The total funding required for the 5-year program period would be $1,250,000. An equivalent amount is also being requested for Chinatown at this time.

Should Council support this program, it would be required to identify a funding source. Planning staff had requested $1.5 million in funding from the 2003 - 2005 Capital Plan ($750,000 for Gastown and a matching amount for Chinatown over the capital plan period). In a recent report to Council, the Capital Plan Staff Review Group indicated they were unable to allocate funds to meet this request because there was no Council mandate related to the program.

The Director of Finance notes that the most appropriate place to fund this program is the Capital Plan as it provides assistance that is similar to other capital grant programs in the Capital Plan and because of the flexibility that the multi-year capital budget provides in administering this kind of grant program. Council has two options for providing this funding:

or

Given the demands on the 2003 - 2005 Capital Plan, the Director of Finance supports the former option of allowing the Capital Plan financial limit to increase. The impact on property taxes will depend on how the capital plan funding sources are allocated to individual programs / projects. However, if the decision was to fund this from an increase in Capital from Revenue rather than debt, the increase could be the equivalent of a one-time tax increase of 0.12% to provide $500,000 annually.

Council should note that the program proposes to run beyond the time frame of the 2003 -2005 Capital Plan. Continuing this program will require funding to be allocated in the 2006 -2008 Capital Plan as well.

Finally, the Director of Finance notes that the proposed program is based on there being $500,000 available each year for capital grants to Gastown and Chinatown heritage buildings. Funding through the Capital Plan process will provide an absolute upper limit to the amount of the grants that can be approved. Should the demand for civic support exceed this amount, Council may be faced with the need to turn down some applicants or to further increase the Operating Budget to provide additional funding.

ii) Property Tax Relief Program
Section 396A of the Vancouver Charter authorizes Council to pass bylaws granting property tax exemptions to heritage properties for conservation purposes. Staff are proposing to have Council utilize this authority to provide property tax exemptions for up to 10 years to cover a portion of the "shortfall costs" involved in completing a major rehabilitation of a building. The main objective of the program would be to encourage full upgrading of buildings thereby ensuring their conservation for the long term while stimulating economic development in the area.

The Director of Finance notes that the Section 396 provisions of the Charter give Council the authority, by by-law, to provide an exemption from property taxes for heritage buildings. In short, this means removing the full value of the property from the taxable assessment roll, thereby providing a 100% tax exemption for a specified period up to 10 years.

Providing support for heritage conservation through a tax exemption process means that Council does not have to provide specific funding for this program. However, it does not mean that the program is "free". By removing taxable value from the assessment roll, Council will effectively "transfer" the taxes that would have been paid by these properties to all other properties on the tax roll. Based on estimates of the annual cost provided by Planning staff, the amount of this transfer will be approximately $3.6 million. Using the 2002 property tax levies as the base, the impact of this transfer of costs will range from a tax increase of about 0.4% for Class 2 Utility properties to 0.52% for Class 6 Commercial properties. The residential class would be allocated cost equivalent to a 0.44% tax increase. If the number or total value of the exemptions increases beyond this level, there will be a consequential increase in the tax burden borne by other properties. Similarly, if the take up of exemptions is less than $3.6 million annually, a lower property tax increase would be required. Section 396B of the Vancouver Charter includes reference to repayment of tax exemptions should the building be destroyed and for alterations without authorization. Owners seeking property tax exemptions (and/or bonus density) will be required to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement or a Section 219 covenant satisfactory to the City.

As the anticipation is that the exempted buildings would not be upgraded without the benefit provided through the tax exemption, the additional taxes paid after the exemption is completed will at least partially compensate taxpayers for their support. Furthermore, as more buildings are renovated in the area, economic conditions are expected to improve. As a result, it is anticipated that rents will rise and the shortfall costs will decrease, and correspondingly, the incentive required would be reduced.

iii) Density Bonus for Transfer Off-Site
Any remaining amount required to make up for shortfall costs would be provided through a density bonus amount that could be transferred. This report includes a recommendation to amend the transfer of density policy to allow density transfers from, but not to, heritage sites in Gastown in order to facilitate the disposition of density. Providing facade grant and property tax incentives will result in the bonus density required to support conservation efforts to be reduced, thereby lessening the amount of heritage bonus density that would be generated from Gastown. Staff have also commissioned a separate study on the density bank to determine ways in which its utilization can be improved. The report is nearing completion and will include recommendations regarding the capacity and performance of the density bank. Staff will report on the matter to Council this autumn.

The GBIS has also requested that transfer of density be permitted to non-heritage sites in Gastown and that such density be bonussed by an additional 20%. While there may be some merit in utilizing heritage density created by Gastown buildings within Gastown, staff are concerned that this will have a negative effect on the historic low-scale and sawtooth character of Gastown and effectively push buildings to exceed the 75 foot height parameter. There may be cases where this could be supportable but these should continue to be approved through the discretionary approval process which remains available to owners.
iv) Heritage Incentives in Other Jurisdictions
Incentive programs such as those proposed for Gastown are widely used in other Canadian cities. 39 municipal governments in Canada offer some form of financial incentives for heritage conservation. For example, Victoria, Regina, and Charlottetown provide property tax relief and grants; grants are available in New Westminster and Calgary is also considering similar measures; Edmonton and Saskatoon rely on property tax relief; Winnipeg utilizes tax credits and grants; and Toronto is currently contemplating a property tax relief program. Summary information on some of these programs is included in Appendix E. Generally property tax incentives are used for major rehabilitation work and grants are used for smaller components such as facade improvements.

Information gathered from some of these jurisdictions and other studies assessing the effectiveness of incentives illustrates a number of potential benefits. Incentives encourage economic investment and activity by leveraging private investment, acting as an economic multiplier, and creating jobs. Among the other benefits are that historic buildings are retained and neighbourhood conservation is supported which results in enhanced tourism development. Furthermore, incentives often provide the impetus to stabilize and structurally upgrade heritage buildings improving public safety. This is an important consideration forGastown where there is a high proportion of unreinforced masonry buildings which are often most susceptible to damage in the event of an earthquake. An additional feature is that demolition waste is reduced through the reuse of existing buildings. Another important consideration is that as economic circumstances improve, conditions on the street should also get better and lessen future public costs in the area.

b) Administrative Improvements

i) Guidelines for Heritage Conservation and Form of Development
Sites in Gastown are regulated by the HA-2 Zoning District Schedule and most are also protected heritage sites. As such, development (new buildings or rehabilitation of existing ones) is reviewed on an individual basis. The HA-2 Schedule contains no density provisions, but relies on height regulations and the condition that alterations to the exterior of buildings in the HA-2 District requires approval of a development application. No changes to the HA-2 Zoning District Schedule are being recommended as part of this report. However, design guidelines have been prepared to provide clear direction and certainty to owners, architects and staff. Items related to heritage building character such as design details, materials and fenestration would apply to all sites in the area in order to streamline processing of applications by removing the ambiguity and time involved in negotiating detailed design elements case by case. Additional guidelines pertaining to height and density would be implemented only for sites seeking heritage incentives. In addition, conservation standards, as presently used in Chinatown, will need to be met when incentives are being requested. The design guidelines and conservation standards are consistent with those emerging from the national Historic Places Initiative. It is recommended that once these national standards are available, they be used. Furthermore, owners would enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement (HRA) to secure the conservation and ongoing maintenance of the building exterior when incentives are provided.

ii) Streamline Approval Process
A number of items to facilitate decisions on development proposals and applications are recommended. Reviewing GHAPC's terms of reference to enhance their design and heritage expertise as described later in this report could eliminate the need for Urban Design Panel review of Gastown projects. The transfer of responsibility for the area from the Province to the City, discussed in detail below, will also result in more efficiencies. One other component that has been implemented in advance of the plan is the assignment of a project facilitator from Development Services to heritage projects.

iii) Annual Reporting
In order to keep Council abreast of activity as a result of the GHMP, staff are recommending an annual report be prepared. This will also allow Council to address emerging issues and to monitor the effectiveness of the program on an ongoing basis. The annual reporting will also pay close attention to two specific issues raised by the community:

· Maintaining existing zoning and approval process

· Potential impact of heritage incentives on low-income housing stock

As part of the annual monitoring of the GHMP, staff will keep a close eye on the number of low-income housing units that are converted. Should there be an extraordinary number being converted, staff will report back to Council. Another possible mitigation measure would be extending the concept of property tax relief and other incentives to owners who maintain low-income housing should the heritage tax relief program be approved.

iv) Promoting the Incentive Program
In order to assist with promoting the incentive program, the Director of Current Planning is also recommending that the Gastown Business Improvement Society be engaged in advising property and business owners and residents of the incentive program. This would involve developing promotional material, including a brochure, that would describe the aspects of the program. Funding in the amount of $5,000 is being requested to support this.

4. Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee (GHAPC)
The Spaxman Report recommends that GHAPC be replaced with a Heritage Commission for Gastown having a mandate to advise Council on implementation of the heritage management plan and provide conservation and design review of permit applications. Staff support the notion of reviewing the terms of reference for the committee with the intent of endorsing a mandate that would place the responsibility for all urban design review for Gastown projects with the committee as an alternative to additional review by the Urban Design Panel. This would include consideration of GHAPC membership to ensure sufficient heritage and design expertise. A comparative example would be the First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel. The recommendation in this report would direct staff to begin consultation with the community and report back to Council with a proposed model.

5. Public Realm
A number of the actions in the Spaxman Report are related to the public realm. This includes maintaining and enhancing the street beautification installed almost 30 years ago, completing an inventory and adopting policies to conserve elements such as historic streetscape features, extending the beautification to Cordova Street, and maintaining historic features such as cornices and fire escapes, developing a public greenway along the former CPR right-of-way and restoring Blood Alley as an important public space. While staff support most of these directions in principle, a more detailed assessment of the costs to complete and implement them needs to be undertaken. It is recommended that Planning and Engineering staff developa plan to deal with the public realm for Gastown and report back to Council for consideration.

Complementary Revitalization Initiatives
Working with the community, a comprehensive program to deal with a wide range of items complementary to the GHMP was developed. A key objective was to improve the confidence of businesses and individuals from within and outside of the area. Some of these initiatives are related to making the process of renovating buildings easier such as the review of the Building By-law currently underway and the forthcoming report proposing to waive encroachment fees for architectural appurtenances on heritage buildings. Other work related to physical improvements to the public realm, including the rebuilding of the Water Street roadbed, have been completed. A detailed description of all items is included in Appendix C. In conjunction with the GHMP, these initiatives will contribute to area wide revitalization.

Senior Government Involvement
1. Provincial
Approximately three years ago the Province advised that it wanted to transfer responsibility for the heritage designations for Gastown and Chinatown to the City. As a result Council supported the completion of this Gastown Heritage Management Plan and directed staff to review the legal implications of the transfer. The Province, with input from City staff, prepared legislation to effect the transfer. There are three key elements in the legislation:

a) Transfer of Designations
The transfer of heritage designations will result in no material change as the municipal designations will simply be a continuation of the provincial designations enacted in 1971. No additional regulatory provisions will come into effect as a result of the transfer. Furthermore, transfer of responsibility for the areas would streamline the regulatory approval process. Although the approving authority has been vested with the Director of Planning since 1981, the provincial designation allowed for the possibility of ministerial intervention, and for City-owned sites, approval of the Minister was required. The transfer to the City would eliminate the need for all Provincial Government involvement.

b) Compensation
The draft bill also includes language that ensures the City would not be liable for compensation for the sites being transferred. Development proposals will continue to be processed in the same manner and incentives are available to assist with the costs of rehabilitating buildings.

c) Heritage Conservation Areas
Finally, provisions in the Local Government Act, namely the ability to create heritage conservation areas and temporary protection measures, are not included in the Vancouver Charter. The proposed legislation would amend the Vancouver Charter enabling the City to use these heritage conservation tools as appropriate and bring the Vancouver Charter in line with the Local Government Act with respect to heritage matters. The ability to create heritage conservation areas would allow for a more comprehensive approach to protecting distinctive areas as it could include buildings and other elements, such as landscape features, having heritage value. Implementation requires approval by Council at Public Hearing.

The Bill has now been passed by the legislature and awaits direction from the City before being brought into force. Approval of Recommendation D would begin this process.

2. National
a) Historic Places Initiative
At the Federal level, work is well underway on the Historic Places Initiative (HPI) a national program that will include a Canadian register of historic places, standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places, financial assistance and a national trust for heritage conservation. The key element in the program will be the financial incentives which are likely to be based on the American model which provides income tax credits equal to 20% of rehabilitation costs. The availability of a federal program would reduce the level of incentives required from local government.

At the opening ceremony of the recent Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) conference the Hon. Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage outlined the government's intentions to proceed with the HPI including tax incentives to foster private investment. The Department of Canadian Heritage and the FCM agreed to work together to create a heritage caucus to facilitate and implement HPI. In addition, the Interim Report (April 2002) from the Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues includes a recommendation for "grants to support restoration and conversion of heritage properties and the development of mechanisms to encourage redevelopment and restoration of both commercial and residential uses." Discussions with the Minister of Finance are ongoing but financial incentives are still likely a few years away. Therefore, it is recommended that the Mayor write to the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Canadian Heritage urging them to move forward with implementation of Historic Places Initiative, in particular the components related to implementing mechanisms for financial assistance. It is also recommended that the incentive component of the HPI be pursued through the Vancouver Agreement.

b) Application for National Historic Site Status
On February 20, 2001, Council deferred GHAPC's request to submit Gastown for consideration as a National Historic Site (NHS) until the GHMP was completed. Staff and the consultant team have reviewed the implications of this request and have determined listing as an NHS is commemorative in nature and implies that a plaque is installed on the building/site. There are no legal obligations or controls imposed as a result, although Parks Canada staff encourages owners to respect the integrity of NHSs. There are five NHSs in Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery (former Provincial Court House), Orpheum Theatre, Vogue Theatre, Marpole Midden and Stanley Park. Discussions with the Manager of Civic Theatres and Facilities Management staff responsible for the Orpheum Theatre and Vancouver Art Gallery confirm that there are no regulatory implications as a result of being National Historic Sites. On the other hand Stanley Park is mostly federal property and therefore requires a commemorative integrity statement (describing historic values and objectives for protecting and presenting these values), as well as a management plan incorporating commemorative integrity. This would not be required for Gastown if it were deemed an NHS.

A comparative example for Gastown is the Chinatown District in Victoria. Discussion with the planner for Chinatown in Victoria indicates no additional regulatory controls or requirements have been imposed as a result of NHS status. While symbolic in nature, listing as an NHS could potentially have benefits in the future should additional funding be made available through federal programs.

3. Vancouver Agreement
A number of significant initiatives by the three levels of government under the Vancouver Agreement support efforts to revitalize Gastown. These include safety and security upgrades to the Gastown Parkade, rebuilding the Water Street roadbed, and Neighbours First, a community-based partnership of Gastown, Chinatown and Downtown Eastside organizations that provides increased eyes on the street, detailed clean-up and assistance to people who visit the area. In addition, an Economic Revitalization Strategy for the eastern area of the downtown is being developed in consultation with the community and will be completed later this year.

Chinatown
As with Gastown, Chinatown was designated as a heritage area in 1971 by the Province. A new zoning schedule that includes provisions for bonus density and ability to transfer it off site as well as design guidelines were adopted in 1994. At present, considerable efforts are being undertaken, with the direct participation of the community, to achieve revitalizationobjectives. A new vision for Chinatown was recently presented to Council. Recommendation H instructs staff to review the incentives proposed under the Gastown Plan for their applicability in Chinatown. In the interim staff have incorporated the implementation of the facade program for Chinatown in the request for funding.

Staffing
The Spaxman Report recommends a staff position be created to implement the plan. The Director of Current Planning supports the notion of providing service to Gastown but is not convinced that a new position in addition to the existing resources committed to Gastown should be considered until Council has provided clear direction for the area. Should Council approve the recommendations contained in this report, the Director of Current Planning will report back to Council with resourcing options for implementation.

Community Consultation
Throughout the preparation of the consultant reports and the staff report there has been considerable discussion with the Gastown community. This has included focussed meetings with GHAPC, the Gastown Business Improvement Society, property owners and representatives of the low-income community, and broad outreach through open houses. Input from constituent groups and the general public has been incorporated into the consultant and staff reports. Staff have met with property owners, the Gastown Business Improvement Society, the Gastown Heritage Area Planning Committee, representatives of the low-income community in Gastown, the Vancouver Heritage Commission and Heritage Vancouver to present and discuss the directions included in this report and seek input to this report. Staff are confident that the recommendations reflect a balance of opinions and objectives for the area.

CONCLUSION
This report recommends a number of actions to facilitate the conservation of heritage buildings and the economic revitalization of Gastown. Considerable effort has been put into the development of a plan that balances a number of objectives in the area. Gastown is a unique place with irreplaceable heritage resources in the city, has experienced unique challenges, and the proposed plan calls for a unique program to help kick start economic activity in the area in a heritage context. Approval of the recommendations contained in this report, combined with efforts under the Vancouver Agreement, are essential to achieve conservation and revitalization objectives for Gastown.

- - - - -

LINK TO APPENDICES A, B, C, D AND E

Appendix A - Design Guidelines

Appendix B - Amendments to Transfer of Density Policy

Appendix C - Complementary Revitalization Initiatives

Appendix D - Summary of Staff Comments on Spaxman Report

Appendix E - Financial Incentives for Heritage Conservation in Selected Canadian Cities

 

* * * * *

ag020730.htm

 

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver