TRANSIT-ORIENTED

DEVELOPMENT
CASE STUDY
COLLINGWOOD VILLAGE, Vancouver, B.C.

COLLINGWOOD VILLAGE

Figure 1Collingwood Village (all construction now complete) Source: Concert Properties

Project data
Date November 2006
completed
Site area 11.3 hectares (28 acres)
Number, type, size of 2,700 suites (1,917 condominium and 783 rental) within 16 buildings (11
residential units condominium and 5 rental) including four-storey townhouses and mid- and
high-rise apartment buildings. Unit sizes range from 34 m2 (365 sq. ft.) to
123 m2 (1,323 sq. ft.).
Other land uses on
6,500 m2 (70,000 sq. ft.) of non-residential space including a grocery
the site
store, a drug store, a 200-pupil elementary school, a 930 m2 (10,000
sq. ft.) community centre, a 650 m2 (7,000 sq. ft.) daycare, small-scale
retail and a neighbourhood policing centre.
239 uph (units per hectare)
Gross residential
density The housing is a mix of three building types: up to four-storey
townhouses and garden apartments, six-storey apartment buildings, and
Maximum height high-rise towers up to 26 storeys.
The 11 condominium buildings have a total of 2,173 parking stalls
(1.35/unit in phase 1 and 1.04/unit in phase 2). All on-site parking is
Parking underground.
$89,000 to $500,000 (1990 to 2006).The average new selling price was
Unit selling $339,948 in 2004. Automated Light Rapid Transit (SkyTrain)
prices Type of 25 700 m (80 2,300 ft.)
transit
Very good
Distance to transit
station Pedestrian
connectivity
Tr ansit-Or iented Development Case Study COLLINGWOOD VILLAGE, Vancouver, B.C .

PROJECT Collingwo TRANSIT SYSTEM

SUMMARY
Collingwood od Village
Village is a high-density, OVERVIEW AND PROJECT
mixed-use urban village centred
around the JoyceCollingwood SkyTrain
CONTEXT
Station in Vancouver.The largest master-
The JoyceCollingwood
planned community in British Columbia
SkyTrain Station is the eighth
(2,700 units, 11.3 hectares), it was
originally assembled by the Vancouver
stop on the Expo Line from
Land Corporation, and later purchased by downtown Vancouver and a
Concert Properties.The City and the major contributor to ridership
developer negotiated a number of on the regions rapid transit
neighbourhood amenities including a system. Developed in 1984 by
community centre, daycare and the Greater Vancouver
community policing station that have Transportation Authority
made this a truly complete urban village. (known as TransLink, and since
Collingwood Village was developed within renamed the South Coast
the context of a regional transportation
British Columbia
and land use planning system that aims
to focus growth around regional centres
Transportation Authority) with
well served by transit. It is considered a funding from the provincial
highly successful transit-oriented government, the Expo Line
development (TOD) that combines was the first of Greater
transit-supportive densities with good Vancouvers SkyTrain (elevated
connections to the transit station and a rail) lines.
mixed-use urban village. According to the
survey A second line (Millennium
of residents described later in this case
Line) was completed in 2002,
study, 56 per cent use transit
one more is under
as their main means of travel to
work. construction and another is
planned. Other components
of the regional rapid transit
network include the
West Coast Express
commuter rail system,
SeaBus1 and a growing
rapid bus system along the
regions heavily populated
major arterials.

Opened in 1986, the Expo line

connects downtown Vancouver
with regional town centres in
Burnaby, New Westminster
and Surrey, travelling through
Regional context map Source: Adapted from well- developed and
FIGURE 2

2007 Google
showing the SkyTrain Map data 2007 established areas in between.
NAVTEQ
line Collingwood Village has
developed as a significant
transit
node on the corridor.

2 Canada Mortgage and Housing

Corporation
 Tr ansit-Or iented Development Case Study COLLINGWOOD VILLAGE, Vancouver, B.C .

1
For a case study featuring a TOD at a SeaBus terminal, refer to Time, North Vancouver in CMHCs Transit-Oriented
Development Case Studies series at http://www.cmhc.ca/en/inpr/su/sucopl/upload/65508EnW.pdf

Canada Mortgage and Housing 11

Corporation
Tr ansit-Or iented Development Case Study COLLINGWOOD VILLAGE, Vancouver, B.C .

Urban Transportation Showcase Program) is

intended to further encourage transit-
supportive densities, land uses and urban
FIGURE 3

JoyceCollingwood is the Source: design around the SkyTrain stations.

Adapted
eighth station from from map

downtown Vancouver on
provided
by The Expo Line is the backbone of the regions
the Expo Line. Translink.
transit system with extremely successful
ridership, so much so that customer surveys
show one of the leading areas of dissatisfaction
is overcrowding. The lines 2005 weekday
average ridership was estimated at
approximately 188,000, up 11 per cent from
approximately 169,000 in 2003. Densities
around stations vary significantly but sufficient
redevelopment has occurred at enough stations
along the line, and in enough neighbourhoods
close to the line, to make the corridors
densities transit-supportive.

TransLinks investments are required by Sourc

It has taken a number of years Collingwoo
FIGURE 4

legislation to support the Greater Vancouver for zoning and other

e:
d Village is @
Regional District (GVRD) Growth Management land use tools to be put into place by the various
adjacent
2008
Micro
Plan (the Livable Region Strategic Plan) which municipalities that control land to
use
thealong theCorpo
line to
soft

calls for complete, compact communities that Joyce

enable and encourage high-density development ration
.
Collingwoo
around some of the Expo Line stations. In some
maximize transportation choice. This plan rightscases,
All

designates growth within a Growth d SkyTrain

this has still not occurred or occurred at a minimal
reser
ved.
Station.
Concentration Area centred around the level due to established lower-density neighbourhoods
metropolitan core. The City of Vancouver, like that have resisted change. The Transit Villages project
other municipalities within the region, is (part of TransLinks
required to prepare a Regional Context
Statement that describes how its other plans
and policies will achieve consistency with the
regional plans key strategies:
Protect the green zone.
Build complete communities.
Achieve a compact metropolitan region.
Increase transportation choice.

The area around JoyceCollingwood Station was

previously an industrial and active rail yard
area. When these uses eventually declined, not
long after the Expo Line was opened, the large
area of land was relatively easy to assemble,
and for the City
to rezone for high-density residential.

2 Canada Mortgage and Housing

Corporation
 Tr ansit-Or iented Development Case Study COLLINGWOOD VILLAGE, Vancouver, B.C .

The JoyceCollingwood Station had an

average weekday ridership of 10,300 in
2003, which had increased to 10,800 in
2005 (nearly a five-per-cent increase).
The JoyceCollingwood Station is
considered to be a highly successful
example of transit-supportive densities
and development, given the mix of uses,
high residential densities, accessible
pedestrian network, and reduced
residential parking requirements.

DEVELOPERS PERSPECTIVE
Replacing light industrial and railway
lands, the 2,700-unit Collingwood
Village project was developed by
Concert Properties over 16 years. The
project was born from discussions
between the developer and the City
that identified surplus industrial lands
adjacent to the newly built Joyce
SkyTrain Station.

Canada Mortgage and Housing 11

Corporation
A vision for the project was defined in 1989 to Parking and Bicycle Storage
reflect the combined objectives of three
entities: The condominium units contain a total of 2,173
parking spaces. All parking is located
1. Concerts management and shareholders underground. All buildings include bicycle
wanted to move beyond the companys parking for a total of 2,408 bicycle spaces
initial focus of developing rental located both at and below grade. Commercial
properties; and community buildings on the site also
2. The City of Vancouver had identified the provide change rooms and showers in addition
area as one where it was appropriate to to parking.
replace industrial uses; and
During the rezoning process, the parking ratio
3. The GVRD wanted to reduce sprawl by was negotiated between the developer and the
increasing densities, especially around City engineering department to be lowered to
transit stations. 1.35 spaces per unit, compared to 1.75, which is
A mix of building heights Source:
Concert the standard for this type of residential
adds visual
For Concert, interest.Village has allowed
Collingwood it
Properties
development.
to demonstrate how a new rapid transit system Concert thought the standard should be lower
can be the impetus for coordinated land use still to reflect the proximity to transit. Following
planning within a large-scale development. the build-out of phase 1, they successfully
negotiated a further reduction in parking
standards to 1.04 spaces per unit based on the
actual usage.

Transit-Oriented Design
Considerations
Mere steps2 to the JoyceCollingwood SkyTrain
Station,
the proximity and good pedestrian connections
to the transit station were very important
considerations for the developer. Collingwood
Village has a number of design features that
make walking both pleasant and convenient:
The blocks are small with mid-block
connections and pathways between
buildings.
The central street that was created during
project development, Crowley Drive,
serves as the major pedestrian route. Most
of the major buildings as well as the parks
front onto this street, making it an
interesting and pleasant place to walk or
cycle.
The streets have street trees and include
pedestrian bulges at the intersections to
reduce crosswalk distances.

4 Canada Mortgage and Housing

Corporation
 Perhaps what makes Collingwood Village day, the streets are busy with commuters,
most pleasant for walking is the fact that shoppers and residents. This contributes
it is a busy place, that is, there are lots of greatly to
people around. Even on a rainy Vancouver the feeling of safety in
the area.

2
The northern corner of the project is located only steps from the JoyceCollingwood SkyTrain Station, with the southern
corner nearly 700 m (2,300 ft.) away. A distance of 400 m (1,300 ft.) is generally considered a comfortable five-minute
walk for the average person.
FIGURE 5

Canada Mortgage and Housing 5

Corporation
 for the largest suites. The average new selling
price was
$339,948 in 2004. This compares to the average new
high-rise condominium selling price in Vancouver of
View of Collingwood Village Source:

showing the central

Concert
Properties $326,285 in 2004.3
FIGURE 6

pedestrian street (at left) and

variety of building forms. The project is considered very successful by
the developer. Concert Properties take pride
in the fact that the project not only met
profit expectations with unit sales and
prices following market trends in Vancouver
but also generated a true community and
promoted the regional goal of increasing
density and reducing urban sprawl.

persons. Initially, the buyers were low- to middle-

income households but, in recent years, more
investors have purchased properties. The project has
been
16 years in the making, so prices have changed
For the most part, the area feels safe at most considerably in keeping with the Vancouver market.
times of the day. However, the SkyTrain station Initially, suites sold for $89,000 and, in the later years,
itself is a utilitarian design in need of a facelift, prices have topped $500,000
and a far cry from the sleek designs of the
newer Millennium Line stations. The area
under the guide rail is dark, often littered with
garbage and consequently a little foreboding.
Local residents have attempted to brighten
this area up with murals and the installation of
community gardens but, on a dull day or at
night, the area immediately surrounding the
station still suffers from the sense of danger
that plagues many of the Expo Line stations.

New housing is buffered from the elevated

SkyTrain line that runs along the northern edge
of the site with landscape setbacks and acoustic
treatment of building facades on north-facing
sites.

Project Success and Costs

Built in two phases, the project has unit sizes
ranging from very small apartments, less than
34 m2 (365 sq. ft.) to townhouses of more than
120 m2 (1,300 sq. ft.). The residents are a
combination of first-time buyers and renters
with household size varying from one to four
 Building vibrant communities approximately $5 million to top up the cost of
where neighbours can greet amenities such as a community policing centre
each other is a Concert and a community centre.
hallmark. Concert
believes the right location can Municipal Support
make a difference in the
residents sense of community The developer and the City worked closely
and choose locations for its together to realize this ambitious project. The
developments with shopping, City identified the land as surplus and worked
dining, recreation, and with Concert to develop a vision for the area.
transportation nearby. (Lizette As with most major developments in
Parsons-Bell, Director, Corporation Vancouver, an amenity package was required
and Community Relations) and was negotiated between Concert and the
City. This included the building of the
The availability of transit allowed the Collingwood Neighbourhood House and the
developer to sell the units for a slight community policing centre. The City also
premium, and the proximity to transit offered flexibility in the parking standards,
was used extensively in marketing reducing the requirement from 1.75 stalls per
materials for the project. There were no unit to
unusual financial or liability issues 1.35 and eventually, in later phases, to 1.04
although the site was a brownfield. The stalls per unit. In 1993, after three years of
total project cost was $402 million. Most intensive work with the City and community,
of the amenities were paid for by the finding support for the zoning changes
developer, but the City committed proposed by the developer was relatively
straightforward.

3
CMHC, B.C. Market Analysis Centre, Vancouver
Barriers and Obstacles The developer advises that Extensive
community consultation is key. Listen to the
Although the project was large and
community, work with them to address their
complex, there were no major barriers.
concerns and find creative ways to
Extensive communication with the
incorporate their long-term objectives.
neighbourhood groups throughout the
Maintain an open and honest dialogue with
process resulted in strong neighbourhood
them and deliver on your promises.
support. A well-conceived phasing plan
Furthermore, the developer advises that the
helped to ease the transition from light-
first priority should be to develop a human-
industrial to residential use over the master-
scaled, very comfortable, pedestrian-oriented
planned communitys
residential environment with easy and safe
16-year development period.
connection to transit.
Key Success Factors and Lessons
MUNICIPAL PLANNERS PERSPECTIVE
Learned
The developer attributes the success of the Planning Objectives
project to the innovative mix of housing
types, a well-conceived phasing plan, the Source: When the Expo Line station planning was
Landscaped
long-term commitment of the developer and
Concert
underway, the City of Vancouver at that time
pedestrian Properti
the provision of extensive
connectionscommunity
on the
es had little interest in seeing the Joyce
amenities. In addition,
site a smart master plan Collingwood Station area change from
that uses landscaping and building industrial uses. It was only after the opening
orientation to buffer residents from the of the line that the industry and rail uses in
SkyTrain system combined with a network of that area declined, and the opportunity for a
pedestrian-scaled, landscaped connections new residential community arose.
to that system was also important in
ensuring the success of the project. The quality of the development exceeded the
station area plan objectives that were
formulated in 1987 in conjunction with the
community. Higher densities were negotiated
between the developer and the community in
exchange
for significant community amenities. The City
was also part of the formula, as it was a
partner with the developer to produce rental
housing.
FIGURE 7

Although the project has a much higher

density than the surrounding neighbourhood,
it has achieved a high level of compatibility
with its surroundings through appropriate
scale transitions and urban design initiatives
such as mid-rise podiums wrapping high-rise
towers that are stepped back from the street.
Overall, in spite of the high density, the
project feels humanly scaled.

Municipal Process and Support for

Project
Planning for the area was undertaken between
6 Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation
1981 and 1989 with a station area plan that
defined objectives for the new
neighbourhood. This plan set the tone for
subsequent discussions leading to a
rezoning and eventually development
permit approvals. Rezoning occurred
through comprehensive development (CD-
1) rezonings in the early 1990s.
Amendments to these zones occurred later
as needed.

Canada Mortgage and Housing 7

Corporation
The station area planning process involved and placing lower structures closer to the
extensive community input over eight years. streets adjacent to the existing
The negotiations for added density similarly neighbourhood. The developer responded to
involved the community. In the end, this was a community input with design solutions that
win-win situation for the community (which resulted in neighbourhood support.
secured good
urban design and community amenities), the Parking standards have been adjusted over
developer (who achieved a successful project), time. They are reduced when there is evidence
and the City in that rental housing was built. that people have reduced their reliance on
Nobody seems to mind the higher densities. automobiles and therefore dont need parking
spaces.
The City was required to commit
approximately $5 million to top up the cost of
amenities. However, this project was
accomplished prior to introduction of city-wide
Development Cost Levies that are now used to
secure funding for infrastructure and amenities
in new developments.

Public Consultation Process

There was an extensive public consultation TABLE 1
Collingwood
process and the developer was very co-
operative in sharing information openly with Village
the public. Public input was gathered through Reason
for Main Some
a variety of mechanisms including open choosing reaso influenc
houses and surveys. Collingwo n (%) e (%)*
The majority of local residents were supportive od Village
Proximit 32 61
of the project because of the commitments y to
made by the developer. The community transit
Proximit 22 32
support created support at a Council level, and
y to
within the bureaucracy. Public concerns work
Proximit 0 6
centred around traffic impacts on the existing
y to
neighbourhood. Concert promised to conduct a school
traffic impact analysis prior to completing the Proximity 0 0
to
final phase of the project and undertook daycare
a number of traffic management initiatives as Proximity 6 52
a result. to
amenities
(for
Success Factors example,
shopping,
The urban design factors that are considered Price of 12 39
successful include the location of commercial unit
Size of unit 3 3
uses close to the transit station, with Architectural 6 16
community services slightly further away, features
and high-density residential uses throughout (for
the project. This supports transit ridership example,
and neighbourhood vitality. The scale is layout,
look of
compatible with the surrounding area, Other/don 16 45
despite the high density, because of design t know
features like stepping back taller buildings
* More than one response was allowed, so the
total may not equal 100 per cent.
RESIDENTS PERSPECTIVES
Thirty-one residents from the project were
interviewed during the summer of 2006 to
learn about their motivations for choosing a
home within Collingwood Village, their level
of satisfaction and their transportation
choices.

Reason for Choosing this Location

Proximity to transit and work figured high on
the list
of respondents main reasons for purchasing
in this location with 32 per cent of residents
surveyed choosing it because of proximity to
transit and 22 per cent because of
proximity to work.

Reason for
choosing
As a separate question, respondents were Ninety per cent of respondents said they were
asked to what extent the buildings location very or somewhat satisfied with the overall cost
near transit influenced their decision to live in of living in this location even though, for 65 per
this development. Overall 87 per cent said cent, the purchase price was higher than that of
that the buildings location near transit had a their previous dwelling. Forty per cent said that
strong or some influence on their purchase they accepted this higher cost primarily because
decision. of the location near transit, 25 per cent because
of design features and 25 per cent because of
Most respondents were very satisfied with the neighbourhood amenities. The design and
quality of the project, including 90 per cent appearance of the buildings were very popular
reporting being satisfied with the amount of with respondents, most of whom (90 per cent)
parking provided for their personal use. said they were very or somewhat satisfied with
Somewhat fewer (64 per cent) were satisfied this aspect of the project. Eighty-four per cent
with parking provided for visitors; 93 per cent said they were satisfied or somewhat satisfied
reported being very satisfied or somewhat with the size of their units, even though the
satisfied with the character of the project has some very small units (less than
neighbourhood, including the style and type 37 m2 / 400 sq. ft.).
of housing, landscaping, and shops, that
contribute to the atmosphere of the area. Travel to Work, Shopping and School
Further, 100 per cent were either very
satisfied (55 per cent) or somewhat satisfied The proximity and good connectivity to transit
(45 per cent) with the amenities in the and amenities along with smaller unit sizes
neighbourhood, such as shopping, services, seem to have resulted in fewer households with
schools, and recreation. cars. Only 77 per cent of households surveyed
owned a car, compared to 84 per cent of
households in the Vancouver census
metropolitan area (CMA) and only 13 per cent
owned two or more cars compared to 37 per
FIGURE 8

cent in the CMA. In addition, 51 per cent said

they used transit daily and 71 per cent used
transit at least once a week. In Greater
Part of the success of Source: Vancouver, the overall modal share for transit is
Collingwood Village as a
Concert
Properti 10.8 per cent4. Among the Collingwood Village
transit es respondents, 56 per cent traveled to work
village is due to the high mainly by public transit5 compared to
quality public realm. 11.5 per cent for the Vancouver CMA.6
4
TransLink, 2004 Greater Vancouver Trip Diary Survey
5
A survey of 4,000 households near the SkyTrain in the east side of Vancouver and west side of Burnaby was conducted in
1996. It compared SkyTrain use among two groups: those within 300 m of a station and those over 1 km from the nearest
station. It found that 47 per cent of the group nearest a station took more than 10 trips per month, compared to 18 per
cent in the latter group. Among respondents in the first group, 24 per cent took less than two trips per month, while 60
per cent did so in the group further from a station. This finding is similar to the one shown in table 3, indicating
significantly higher transit use among respondents of Collingwood Village, compared to the Vancouver CMA average.
6
Source: 2001 Census
 Comparison Of those respondents making shopping trips,
of 19 per cent walked, only 22 per cent took
TABLE 2 transit and the rest (58 per cent) drove most
Collingwood
Village
resident and
travel often. The average (mean) trip length from
Vancouver CMA
patterns home to shopping was just over 12 minutes.
Ten per cent said they walked more for
Collingwood Vancouver
Travel variable Village CMA* shopping trips than they did in their previous
home location, with one person walking less. Ten
Mode of travel to 44% motor 72% motor per cent used transit for shopping more than
work vehicle as vehicle as
driver driver before, and none used transit less than before
0% car pool 7% car pool for these trips. Again, convenience was cited
56% public 11.5% public as the major reason for the changes. Three of
transit transit the 31 respondents (10 per cent) used transit
0% walk 6.5% walk more for making regular trips to school or
0% bike 2% bike daycare than they did in their previous
% households who 0%
77%;other 1%
84%;other location.
own at least one 13% two or 37% two or
vehicle(s) more cars more cars
Avg. length of 29 min. (one 67 min. (round
trip to work way) trip) TABLE Change in travel
patterns
* Source: 2001 Census, Statistics Canada
Source: Spending Patterns in Canada, 2001, Statistics 3
Canada si nce last location
Source: General Social Survey on Time Use: Cycle home
19,The Time it Takes to Get to Work and Back, Statistics
Change since Shoppi School
Canada (by Martin Turcotte), 2005 Work
last home trips ng or day-
location trips care
Use transit
13% 10% 10%
more than
before
Drive less than
6% 6% 6%
before
Walk more than
0% 10% 10%
before

Of those respondents using transit, all (100 per Drive more

3% 0% 6%
than before
cent) walked to the transit station and from the
transit station to work. Walking less
0% 3% 3%
All the transit users interviewed rated the trip than before
from home to the transit station as either very Own one less 3%
or somewhat pleasant and very convenient. car
For the majority of transit users, the streets Previous home
was not a
and sidewalks felt safe (87 per cent), there 65%
high-rise
were enough trees and landscaping along the (high-rise is
route (94 per cent), there were walking paths more than five
that are separate from the street (94 per storeys)
cent), the buildings along the way were
attractive (75 per cent), and there were parks
and public amenities along the route (69 per
cent). All of the transit users walked to the
transit station at both ends of their journey.

Although over half of respondents took public

transit to work, only 13 per cent reported
taking transit to get to work more often since
moving to this location suggesting that
Collingwood Village strongly appealed to
existing transit users. The majority cited
convenience as the primary reason for this
change, with others citing cost savings and
pleasant journey as reasons.
Demographics SUMMARY AND LESSONS LEARNED
The respondents of Collingwood Village Collingwood Village is a model TOD that has
tend to have a smaller household size, be delivered on expectations for the developer,
younger and have a higher proportion of transit authority, municipality and the
middle-income households than the community. The project has enough density
Vancouver CMA. Thirty-five per cent had (4,500 people) to help support good levels
previously lived in a high-rise building, of ridership on the Expo Line as well as
and 42 per cent had previously lived in a create a vital community that always
single-detached dwelling. seems to be alive. This critical mass of
residential development supports retail
uses, community amenities, schools and a
Demographic health centre and helps make Collingwood
TABLE 4 and
dataincome
Village a complete, urban community.

Demographi Collingwood Vancouve A major advantage enabling the Collingwood

c variable Village r CMA*
development to be master-planned as a TOD
People per 1.9 2.6 station area was having a single developer
household and relatively easy land assembly (due to the
previous large industrial properties in the
Age range 35% under 35 20% under 35
years years area). The close
59% 35-65 years 61% 35-65 co-operation between the municipality and
6% over 65 years years the developer along with a patient and
Househo 36% under 50%
ld $50,000
inclusive public process meant that all parties
34%
income 56% $50,000 - 16% benefited from, and therefore supported, the
(pre-tax) $100,000 project. The high quality of urban design and
7% over $100,000 good connections between the project and the
Dont 1% n/a
know/refused
transit station has meant that many people
walk to and from the station adding to the
* Data source, 2001 Census, Statistics Canada eyes on the street. Design features make
For Collingwood Village, average age of survey even the high-rise buildings blend well with
respondents and, for Vancouver CMA, average age of the much lower density surroundings. Concert
household maintainer(s)
responded to neighbourhood input with
creative solutions that resulted in widespread
support.

Residents surveyed were generally very

satisfied with their decision to live in
Collingwood Village. Over half used transit to
get to their place of work, nearly five times
the Vancouver CMA average, and many also
used transit and walking for other trips
including shopping.
REFERENCES

Greater Vancouver Regional District, Livable

Region Strategic Plan, adopted January 20,

FIGURE 9
Transition to Sour
1996. ce:
the adjacent Conc
lower-density ert
Prop
TransLink, Three-Year Plan and Ten-Year existing ertie
s
Outlook: Strategic Transportation Plan neighbourho
Amendment, February 2004. od was made
by placing
parks and
City of Vancouver, Joyce Station Area Plan, lower
approved by City Council on May 20, 1987. buildings
near the
CD-1 By-law No. 7204 and Joyce/Vanness edge.
Guidelines for the adjoining Collingwood
Village development.

City of Vancouver, Regional Context

Statement Official Development Plan,
adopted by By-law No. 8060, September 14,
1999.

Concert Properties, Marketing Materials for

Collingwood Village (various).

Bunt & Associates Engineering Ltd., Car

Ownership Patterns Near Rapid Transit Stations,
1996.
 Tr ansit-Or iented Development Case Study COLLINGWOOD VILLAGE, Vancouver, B.C .

CONTACT INFORMATION
Developer Transit
Planner authority
Concert Properties City of Vancouver Joanna Brownell, Transportation
Ltd. Rob Whitlock Planner
Lizette Parsons-Bell Senior Housing Planner Greater Vancouver
Director, Corporate Projects 435 West 12th Transportation Authority
and Community Avenue (TransLink)
Relations Phone: 604-873-7432 1600-4720 Kingsway,
9th Floor 1190 Hornby Fax: 604-871-6488 Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4N2
St., Vancouver, B.C. V6Z E-mail: Phone: 604-453-3066
2K5 Phone: 604-688-9460 rob.whitlock@vancouver Fax: 604-453-4697
E-mail: .ca E-mail: joanna_bro
LParsonsBell@ConcertProper Website: [email protected] Website:
ties.com www.vancouver.ca www.translink.bc.ca
Website:
www.ConcertProperties.com

2009, Canada Mortgage and Housing

Corporation Printed in Canada
Produced by CMHC 05-10-09

Although this information product reflects housing experts current knowledge, it is provided for general
information purposes only. Any reliance or action taken based on the information, materials and techniques
described are the responsibility of the user. Readers are advised to consult appropriate professional resources
66623

to determine what is safe and suitable in their particular case. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
assumes no responsibility for any consequence arising from use of the information, materials and techniques