The current Waterfront Landing proposal was not met with a warm reception at the Advisory Design Panel earlier this month.
Before it was presented to the design panel, the Waterfront Landing proposal, by Bosa and Kingswood Properties, passed first reading of re-zoning on May 2.
The proposal slated for 21.5 hectares on the east side of the Mamquam Blind Channel includes 865 units of housing and approximately 4,600 square metres (50,000 square feet) of commercial space and two hectares of public park and trails.
“I see a place that is not a destination. I see no reason for someone to come here,” said the panel’s Derek Venter, a Whistler-based architect.
“The first time someone would come would be to see it, the second time would be by accident,” Venter told the design panel, adding the proposal did not feel uniquely Squamish.
The Advisory Design Panel is an independent committee made up of people related to the development industry or interested community members that advises District staff and council on the design of residential multi-family, commercial and industrial buildings in Squamish.
The panel makes suggestions that council takes into consideration when a project comes before them for approval.
Venter also critiqued the project for its lack of commercial space. “You are providing five per cent commercial – this is a residential development. You say this is adding to downtown or the two would talk to each other. Why would anybody come here, other than to sleep here?”
Venter went on to question why the goal is for 20 per cent commercial in the downtown core, but Waterfront Landing doesn’t have to meet that target.
Benn Duffell, senior development manager at Bosa Properties who presented the project to the panel, said the project would have a uniquely Squamish feel to it and explained the proposal’s commercial allocation.
“I think there is a balancing act that is going on between the actual downtown Squamish and this site…. We don’t want to detract from the downtown core. We want to supplement it.”
After the meeting, Venter told The Chief his vision for Waterfront Landing.
“I see this really open public place… I see markets, fish markets. I see people with the rafting companies and kite-boarding – they can have their businesses there,” he said.
“I see coffee shops and restaurants where people from Vancouver drive to so they can park.”
Other members of the design panel said that townhomes weren’t the right fit for such a valuable piece of land.
“Financially, as a development they make sense and they sell like crazy and they are cheap to build, but it really makes for a singular type of neighbourhood with not overly active, or public streets,” said the panel’s Chris Hunter. “I think those streets should have higher density and more commercial, more activity – more of a reason to occupy them.”
Cheryl Fu, also an architect, encouraged Bosa to incorporate more mixed-use buildings.
“It is hard to imagine anyone else going to this place, other than the people living here,” she said.
Other issues raised by panelists included the need for separated biking and pedestrian trails rather than multi-use trails; more affordable housing and locating the affordable units centrally, rather than on the periphery as is currently planned.
In reply to a request for comment after the meeting, Bosa representatives sent The Chief a written statement.
“At this time, we are reviewing all comments that came out of this week’s Advisory Design Panel for Waterfront Landing, and are working with District staff to address the proposal accordingly,” reads the email from Bosa.
“Most importantly, we are taking into consideration the role that this site plays in the broader, long-range planning goals of downtown Squamish. We look forward to moving this project forward for the benefit of the greater Squamish community.”
Coun. Ted Prior, who is the council representative on the panel, said panel comments made him rethink council passing first reading of rezoning for Waterfront Landing.
“[The proponents] come in and present to us and we ‘ooh and ah’,” Prior told council at the May 16 regular meeting. “The design panel wasn’t nearly as positive about it.”
