The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[mr.x]

Let's hear it! Both the midgets and the tall freaks!

[Canadian Mind]

Amacon! :D

600 feet of corporate glory on 1133 Melville street (hoping for more height & girth, make her a landmark!

Building on stilts! :D

potentially up to 660 feet of museum, rtail, hotel, and housing, half of which is on stilts to avoid a viewcone!


those are the rumours I know of and are damn proud of to spread.

[Mike K.]

Bump...just so new visitors can see this thread.

[raggedy13]

Latest basic design of Amacon tower.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/ama.jpg

[MistyMountainHop]

^ Awesome.

[mr.x]

Latest basic design of Amacon tower.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/ama.jpg

sweetness! does the site block any view cones and does it exceed the area's height limit?

[Canadian Mind]

Sweet damn, does the patio cut into the side of the building like that?, or did you just do that to illustrate where it will be? And any chance of changes in the dimensions again? either width or height?

Also, when looking at downtown from coal harbour, which side of the Melville will it be on?

[raggedy13]

^It'll essentially be to the immediate left of the Melville when looking from the Coal Harbour side. I didn't alter anything, that is how the current design appears from an elevation showing the south side - the Loden addition has a slanted wall and the tower has an oppositely angled wall to it with the podium roof space inbetween taken up by a patio. I'm sure it's all still subject to change though. No changes on dimensions that I'm aware of. It's set at 48 storeys at the moment not including mechanical.

There are no specific view cone restrictions on the site, it is in the same splice of air space as the Shangri-La and RC, however it is within the broken line box which only allows a maximum height of up to 400ft.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/Misc/ViewCones.gif

[Canadian Mind]

Any idea's where they are going to get the density from?

[Hot Rod]

So does this thread replace the Vancouver Construction 3 thread? I really loved that thread, since it was a common meeting place to find out what's happening in the city.

I hope that is the intent of this thread or that we recreate the Vancouver Construction General thread, so I dont have to individually thumb through EVERY thread to get info.

[Canadian Mind]

no, this is just for rumours.

[mr.x]

So does this thread replace the Vancouver Construction 3 thread? I really loved that thread, since it was a common meeting place to find out what's happening in the city.

I hope that is the intent of this thread or that we recreate the Vancouver Construction General thread, so I dont have to individually thumb through EVERY thread to get info.

the point of this thread is to post rumours on projects that have yet to be announced, i.e. Amacon. please don't turn this into a Vancouver Construction thread! that is not it's purpose!


btw, do you guys want this topic pinned?

[Canadian Mind]

Why not? :P This one and the general update thread thing.

[Hot Rod]

X, dont get too excited.

I only wanted clarification since I didn't see a replacement for the Construction General thread yet.

Now I see it and it is pinned, thanks.

[Bert]

Hay guys! A woman with steel toed boots on the Shangri La site told me that there'll be a retractable helipad on the roof of the jutting box thing. She sounded pretty official about it.

[Canadian Mind]

lol, i've met alot of chicks with steel toed boots. :P I don't think there will be a heli-pad there though, that has been designated as a sky graden... no room for a heli-pad.

maybe it will jet-out from the roof, but not the sky garden... what use is there for a heli-pad on a residential tower anyways?

[mr.x]

Hay guys! A woman with steel toed boots on the Shangri La site told me that there'll be a retractable helipad on the roof of the jutting box thing. She sounded pretty official about it.

why on earth would they have a helipad there? still pretty cool though.


Maybe they could launch fireworks atop of the Shangri-la during the 2010 Olympic Ceremonies......


Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games
http://images.ungeekenaustralia.com/2006/03/Fireworks.jpg

[Hed Kandi]

Who is the architect for the Amacon tower?

[jlousa]

The helipad on shangri-la will tie in with their submarine docking station under the tower, they have an underground canal connecting to coal harbour. The guy at the chevron where the lady with the steel toe boots fills up her car told me so.

Cmon guys this is getting way out of hand. Almost to the point where I don't feel like posting anymore.

[LeftCoaster]

At least Bert was kidding.... I think... I hope.

[hollywoodnorth]

The helipad on shangri-la will tie in with their submarine docking station under the tower, they have an underground canal connecting to coal harbour. The guy at the chevron where the lady with the steel toe boots fills up her car told me so.

Cmon guys this is getting way out of hand. Almost to the point where I don't feel like posting anymore.


If Mr X and Mike K let you post that is ;)

[agrant]

There's a helipad???!!!

[hollywoodnorth]

actually there is gonna be 2 helipads.......1 on Ritz across the street......I just talked to one of the Demolition Works........and come on Demo Workers know all right? ;)

2 heli pads whooo!!

I hear Helijet is planning on renting the one on Shangri-la. As the Whitecaps stadium is gonna make thier current one useless. Cool news eh?!

[osirisboy]

Cmon guys this is getting way out of hand. Almost to the point where I don't feel like posting anymore.

normally i would agree however this is thread to post rumours. everything on this specific thread should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Mininari]

Back to the Amacon Tower...
This thing is a rumour (a seemingly well-sourced rumour), and we have an ongoing civic strike in Vancouver.

What are the chances that the city is going to allow a 900K sq/ft tower, 600ft tall in a zone designated for 400 (with SPECIAL permissions to get to 450ft). I know its office space, and Vancouver is desperate for new AAA space... but what about the "Higher Buildings Policy" and density rules that will no doubtedly be flaunted.

Is an office tower the exception to policy?
Will this puppy come to us as rumoured... or will it end up another 300ft stub?

[raggedy13]

Initial concept behind 'stilt' project a friend passed my way...

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/tst.jpg

[slurrey]

I Came

[squeezied]

Holy Shit!

[Mike K.]

Jesus H. Christ...

[squeezied]

i really how central the location is, right between shangri-la and one wall. hard to tell, but the residential portion looks similar to some condos, like the capitol; on the other hand, its elliptical shape might compliment one wall. owell hafta see more first!

[hollywoodnorth]

Holy Mother Of God!

[Mike K.]

It's Vancouver's take on

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Tuntex_Sky_Tower_Kaohsiung_Taiwan.jpg/270px-Tuntex_Sky_Tower_Kaohsiung_Taiwan.jpg
...sorta.

[danby]

^^^ I much more like Vancouvers compared to that!

[Canadian Mind]

Ha Ha! Fuck.

Who called it? :P

I find it rather amazing how much this thread exploded when the new thing came up. Seeing as how this isn't necessarily a rumour anymore (someone actually drew a rendering of the thing somewhere) should we give it it's own thread now?

Also, I'm kinda disappointed with the residential section. While it looks awesome as it is, I would hope that they would try to get a bit more square footage out of the residential portion by making it longer. if it were made wider I'm sure it would become unstable, but length extensions past each of the respective pillars wouldn't screw up stability (I would hope).



PS. Mike, no. This thing is unique in shape and form. Not to say it isn't related to that, but this is on a far more extreme level.


Back to the Amacon Tower...
This thing is a rumour (a seemingly well-sourced rumour), and we have an ongoing civic strike in Vancouver.

What are the chances that the city is going to allow a 900K sq/ft tower, 600ft tall in a zone designated for 400 (with SPECIAL permissions to get to 450ft). I know its office space, and Vancouver is desperate for new AAA space... but what about the "Higher Buildings Policy" and density rules that will no doubtedly be flaunted.

Is an office tower the exception to policy?
Will this puppy come to us as rumoured... or will it end up another 300ft stub?

IMO fuck policy

[Mike K.]

PS. Mike, no. This thing is unique in shape and form. Not to say it isn't related to that, but this is on a far more extreme level.

Absolutely. I was being more tongue and cheek than comparing the two directly, but that aside, the two buildings would share very similar weight bearing and structural elements. Vancouver's "spire" element sits atop two exposed support structures but Taiwan's support structures are enveloped by the square footage necessary to make that office tower financially viable. Both also sit on a podium. Aesthetically, of course, Vancouver's version has more curvature than Taiwan's could throw a stick at, but, as I said above, structurally the designs are similar (you just need to take away the aesthetic component and consider the internal elements independently).

[giallo]

Will this ever pass the UDP? Me thinks this is just a tad too extreme for architecturally conservative Vancouver.

[vanman]

I Came

And I just crapped my pants. That thing is insane.

[Mininari]

WOW! ! !

:slob:

I think I speak for everyone reading this thread when I say:
"I want to see this in a skyline render!!!"


Judging by the Burrard/Haro/Smith street labels, this is to replace the Sutton Place Hotel?
Or was that fact known ages ago?

[Canadian Mind]

Will this ever pass the UDP? Me thinks this is just a tad too extreme for architecturally conservative Vancouver.


Unified voice through a city-based lobby group would be nice. ;)

Is the general populous allowed to attend and comment on the UDP panels?

i need a map to show me where this puppy is going. *busts out Google earth*

edit, found it: 230 meters from Wall Centre, and 250 meters from Shangri-la. This will undouptably fill the skyline in looking from English Bay.

Anyone thought of possible shadowing concerns on Robson Street?

[1ajs]

:0 wow....

[mr.x]

i peed, i pooed, my nose bled, i puked, and lastly, i started to cry.

[MichaelChampion]

i peed, i pooed, my nose bled, i puked, and lastly, i started to cry.

Sounds like you had an awesome Sunday.

Building is sweet, can't wait to see what happens with this, although I do hope they make the stilts meeting the residential a little smoother than in the rough render.

[Hot Rod]

This is nice.

But so is Tuntex tower in Kaohsiung (you know, Taiwan). That's one of my most favourite superskyscrapers.

If ONLY this one could be as tall as the Tuntex tower!!! Heck, I'd even settle for 700'.

[SFUVancouver]

Wow! I like what I see. I agree the transition from the stilts to residential component will need to be worked out but as a concept, and a detailed one at that, I'm blown away. It feels like there is a change afoot when it comes to developing downtown and the new crop of tall buildings, most notably the Shangri-La, will go far to foster additional tall buildings and, hopefully, more daring architecture.

[mr.x]

I was thinking, on the underbelly/ass/crotch (whatever you wanna call it) of the residential stilted component, they could have some sort of murial or have a giant LED screen flashing images:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1820/suttonlh7.jpg

For comparisson's sake, the Sutton Place Hotel is 232 feet tall.



btw, thanks for posting this rag.

[Canadian Mind]

I was thinking, on the underbelly/ass/crotch (whatever you wanna call it) of the residential stilted component, they could have some sort of murial or have a giant LED screen flashing images:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1820/suttonlh7.jpg

For comparisson's sake, the Sutton Place Hotel is 232 feet tall.



btw, thanks for posting this rag.

Which is about the same size as the hotel and office portions as far as I can tell.

Anyways, I think to have the stilts meet the residential they should make them align with the sides of the residential tower up until they have to turn in (rounding the corners of course) giving them more of a triangle shaped cross section than what appears to be an oval right now.

Also, I know I've always been a fan of increasing the height of buildings in Vancouver... hell, i've said we should tear down the marine building and Teresen in the name of height and density... but I think we can all agree here that now that there is a possible way to defeat the view cones, why not finally reach for the sky? This building is right in the middle of the city, and on some fairly high-up ground... why not make it the current peak of Vancouver? I'd love to see something over 700-800 feet.

Again, I say we should lobby to help get this building through the UDP and inspire change in both architectural quality and the general opinion of height in our city. In doing so I think we should also lobby the city to allow this thing to go damn near as high as the developers are willing to make it go (within reasonable boundaries).

[mr.x]

i was hoping for the museum to be bigger. it looks like it's also about 3 storeys, like the retail component.....though i would think it's actually about 2-storeys of museum assuming that they want more air space for exhibits that require more space.

raggedy, do you have more info on the museum? the square footage?


at least we're finally getting a real facility for the Vancouver Museum. Vanier Park just doesn't do it.

[Jarrod]

I dunnooo... I don't really like it... to me it looks like penis and balls...

[Canadian Mind]

Think it will be enough of a kicker for the city to allow the development to happen?

And I'm sure that the airspace between the office and hotel can be filler in with more museum space if it was required. the viewcone doesn't start for several more stories up.

How big is the site?

I dunnooo... I don't really like it... to me it looks like penis and balls...

Mind in the gutter much dude? :P

You know you are From the Comox Valley when...

[mr.x]

I dunnooo... I don't really like it... to me it looks like penis and balls...

well then, you know where all the gay guys on Davie will be heading to...


how would they get the top residential component built without the whole thing coming down? how do they do it in other cities with similar developments?

[Canadian Mind]

I'd expect they would build the base towers first, then the stilts, then put in temporary steel members from between the towers to support the transfer beam. Once that is done I'd suspect they would complete ground level retail.

I would also venture to guess that they may employ the use of an aircrane when building the residential portion, as they would have basically nothing to anchor a crane too for the first few stories.

[nathan6969]

Hahaha...this is basically like giving the finger to the viewcone policy...i love it...

[bils]

how would they get the top residential component built without the whole thing coming down? how do they do it in other cities with similar developments?

if they can build this.......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/cityq/Projects%20and%20developments/CCTVHeadquarters2.jpg

........then they can certainly build THAT :previous: :yes:

[mr.x]

if they can build this.......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/cityq/Projects%20and%20developments/CCTVHeadquarters2.jpg

........then they can certainly build THAT :previous: :yes:

haha, i never doubted they couldn't. i've just always wondered how exactly they built these types.

[raggedy13]

raggedy, do you have more info on the museum? the square footage?

Sorry not much further info at the moment, but I think the last I heard it won't necessarily be the Vancouver Museum... for now it is just sort of generic 'museum' space, though the Vancouver Museum was thought of as a possible tenant for the concept. I don't think the Vancouver Museum has been approached with this idea yet, if they ever are.

Also, keep in mind that this is only 1 of 3 potential site plans... the other two keeping within general view cone policy.

[Canadian Mind]

^^^ meaning that they all stay below the 240 foot limit, with no stilts, or just a change in what is already there?

Hahaha...this is basically like giving the finger to the viewcone policy...i love it...

I see a pair actually... one for each hand. :D

[vitc]

There is a god!!! That building is amazing...one question though and we all know this will come up at the meetings - what about an earthquake??

I do however PRAY that this will be built...any insight as to the response that this will garner at the city??

[raggedy13]

^^Yeah no stilts. I think one of the other two concepts is based upon remaining below the view cone, and the second is based upon adding some bonus density through density transfers etc and getting it a bit above the view cone limit that way, but still nowhere near 600ft.

[mr.x]

Sorry not much further info at the moment, but I think the last I heard it won't necessarily be the Vancouver Museum... for now it is just sort of generic 'museum' space, though the Vancouver Museum was thought of as a possible tenant for the concept. I don't think the Vancouver Museum has been approached with this idea yet, if they ever are.

Also, keep in mind that this is only 1 of 3 potential site plans... the other two keeping within general view cone policy.

It would be a great site for any museum. Maybe the HR Macmillan Space Centre? If you used your imagination, it could look like a rocket. (but they would mean they would lose a lot of facilities from the Vanier Park building like the laser show theatre and the observatory). I've always thought the space centre should be part of Science World.


Anyhow, something like Victoria's BC Museum would be great.

[Canadian Mind]

deleted

[Canadian Mind]

There is a god!!! That building is amazing...one question though and we all know this will come up at the meetings - what about an earthquake??

I do however PRAY that this will be built...any insight as to the response that this will garner at the city??

Earthquake --- I'm no engineer, but if guy-wires can support communications towers, why can't guy-wires support the building in the event of an earthquake too?

as for the city response, they'll prolley be against the idea of going overtop of the view cones... but I'm sure if the developer spins it the right way, plus enough positive feedback from people such as ourselves to combat the NIMBYs, it can be pulled off.

[mr.x]

Earthquake --- I'm no engineer, but if guy-wires can support communications towers, why can't guy-wires support the building in the event of an earthquake too?

as for the city response, they'll prolley be against the idea of going overtop of the view cones... but I'm sure if the developer spins it the right way, plus enough positive feedback from people such as ourselves to combat the NIMBYs, it can be pulled off.

This is going to be a lot like Whitecaps Stadium. Those NIMBY's were complaining about how the whole stadium could crumble on the pillars it sits on. They're going to be crying and tearing about how they live next to a ticking time bomb, the day that the sky falls on them.

*plays violin*

[Canadian Mind]

Hey, rumour mill, stilts has it's own thread here (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3085344#post3085344).

[Hed Kandi]

Initial concept behind 'stilt' project...

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/tst.jpg


Wow!

Who is the architects?

[Mike K.]

Please continue this discussion here (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138589).

[feisto]

I've heard that plans for the Westin Bayshore condo tower are now cancelled. Also heard that pre-sales are slow at one of Delta Lands projects (Hotel Georgia?). Any truth to this? Is this indicative of a larger trend?

[jlousa]

The high-end does have a abudance of supply that came online all at once. But Fairmont sold pretty well, The residences at the Ritz and Hotel Georgia are selling slower but selling none the less. But the rest of the market is still very strong. Ie Patina sold very well, and I imagine Olympic village is going to be a huge success also.
Haven't heard anyting regarding the westin bayshore but rumour has it the Four Season is in the market for another location in town and it would include residences like some of their newer properties ie seattle. There are also rumblings about Mandarin Oriental coming to town, but there seems to be a lot of new high end hotels around here, but then again I'm not in the hotel business.

[Hed Kandi]

The high-end does have a abudance of supply that came online all at once. But Fairmont sold pretty well, The residences at the Ritz and Hotel Georgia are selling slower but selling none the less. But the rest of the market is still very strong. Ie Patina sold very well, and I imagine Olympic village is going to be a huge success also.
Haven't heard anyting regarding the westin bayshore but rumour has it the Four Season is in the market for another location in town and it would include residences like some of their newer properties ie seattle. There are also rumblings about Mandarin Oriental coming to town, but there seems to be a lot of new high end hotels around here, but then again I'm not in the hotel business.


Vancouver is still missing a lot of higher end hotel chains eg. Mandarin Oriental, Waldorf Astoria, Kempinski, Conrad, Jumeirah, Omni, etc

But, Vancouver is also booming in that respect with the Shangri La, Ritz Carlton, W Hotels, etc


Lots of potential and room for development in this city!

[djh]

I was in a sales showroom this weekend for a development near the SEFC project. The saleswoman, obviously keen to land what she believes is an out-of-town sucker (being a Brit and underplaying my knowledge of the area), she went on a real hard sales pitch about how good a bargain the area east of the Olympic Village is - considering the projects there are "$800/sq. ft and up", whereas her development is $500/sq. ft.
So I started pointing to blank boxes on her area map. "What's there?" - she completely ignored the drug rehabilitation facility I knew about on the block. "Oh, just warehouses." "What about there?", "Oh, low-rise buildings - they won't block your view". Then she pointed on her map to what was clearly labelled "Finning Station". I asked her "What's that?" "Oh, they're building the Millennium Line station there. I had the guy from Translink in just a few days ago and he said it's going ahead, definitely, and will probably go up to UBC. But there will *definitely* be a Skytrain station only a few blocks away should you choose to buy in our development..."

So I called her back on that issue. Now I am not sitting here holding my breath (or saying "a woman with a yellow hat on said they're adding another floor to the Shangri-La") and yes, salespeople will say the most outrageous things to land a sale, but the fact that this was clearly marked on the development plan for the area and she had (allegedly) actually talked to somebody in Translink about it...that's at least a good sign that the area plan has reserved space for the station, and by the way she's talking, they are already working behind the scenes on making it a reality, pending results of consultations or not.

[squeezied]

which developement is this?

[jlousa]

I imagine djh is referring to Jacobsen correct me if I'm wrong, not a big fan of the project, and it seems to be selling very slowly. (Not quite SEFC, not quite SOMA, kinda trying to be both but ending up failing at both)
Regarding the Finning station, there isn't really news, we know there will be a station there, it's now a given the skytrain will be extended at least to granville and probably ubc. The question though is when, 5years, 10years??

[mr.x]

Then she pointed on her map to what was clearly labelled "Finning Station". I asked her "What's that?" "Oh, they're building the Millennium Line station there. I had the guy from Translink in just a few days ago and he said it's going ahead, definitely, and will probably go up to UBC. But there will *definitely* be a Skytrain station only a few blocks away should you choose to buy in our development..."

but the fact that this was clearly marked on the development plan for the area and she had (allegedly) actually talked to somebody in Translink about it...that's at least a good sign that the area plan has reserved space for the station, and by the way she's talking, they are already working behind the scenes on making it a reality, pending results of consultations or not.

that's great news...some confidence in getting this thing built right, as SkyTrain to UBC. lets not make the same mistake as we did with the Canada Line with those miniature platforms.

[Hot Rod]

YES!

Millennium Line SkyTrain, to UBC!!! Awesome.

Hopefully, we'll see/hear that the consultation only backs up/confirms the choice and then we see construction. Especially since we'd have the TBM available.

I agree also, 80-100M platforms please.

[mr.x]

YES!

Millennium Line SkyTrain, to UBC!!! Awesome.

Hopefully, we'll see/hear that the consultation only backs up/confirms the choice and then we see construction. Especially since we'd have the TBM available.

I agree also, 80-100M platforms please.

it'll be interesting to see how Broadway-City Hall Station on the Canada Line will handle that surge in passengers with the future M-Line extension.....50-metre platforms, what a joke. It's already packed at the Millennium Line's Commercial Station platform during peak hours - and that's a 80-metre platform.

[Canadian Mind]

also remember that it isn't just platform length, but train length aswell. ;) when the trains increase form either millennium or expo lines, the stations wont be as crowded as they are now while people wait for trains to arrive.

[mr.x]

also remember that it isn't just platform length, but train length aswell. ;) when the trains increase form either millennium or expo lines, the stations wont be as crowded as they are now while people wait for trains to arrive.

that's how it was like too for the Expo Line when the Millennium Line went online. it got a little less crowded, but after a few years it became more crowded than ever before because of the growing transit options the M-Line provided.

...so, what you said will be short-lived.

[deasine]

i just had a thought:

We all know that the Canada Line will exceed its capacity soon after its completion because of the lack of planning given. From what I see today on the 98 B-Line, I'm guessing the busiest sections of the Canada Line will be from Waterfront Station to Bridgeport Station. That is because Vancouver-Suburbs commuters and Vancouver-Vancouver commuters travel in. Well how about removing some of the Vancouver-Vancouver commuters by implementing the Arbutus StreetCar? If it travels from Waterfront Station down Granville St. to W 5th Avenue then existing tracks down Arbutus and wind its way downt to Marine Drive station, I'm sure that some commuters wouldn't mind a slower trip if there was less people but was equally as reliable.

We can't undo what we did to the Canada Line, so might as well introduce new infrastructure to serve with the Canada Line.

[Canadian Mind]

Mr.X, are you saying that adding more and longer trains will cause congestion, implying that is something we don't want?

I thought the goal here was to get more people using mass transportation, so in my opinion the more people crammed into the system, the better. This is why it is called "mass" transportation. ;)

Using your logic, bigger platforms would also only provide a short term solution, as soon people will fill into that space aswell. ;)

Besides, crowded stations will lead the government to feel that the system needs expansion and improvement, therefore bigger platforms and more lines.

[mr.x]

i just had a thought:

We all know that the Canada Line will exceed its capacity soon after its completion because of the lack of planning given. From what I see today on the 98 B-Line, I'm guessing the busiest sections of the Canada Line will be from Waterfront Station to Bridgeport Station. That is because Vancouver-Suburbs commuters and Vancouver-Vancouver commuters travel in. Well how about removing some of the Vancouver-Vancouver commuters by implementing the Arbutus StreetCar? If it travels from Waterfront Station down Granville St. to W 5th Avenue then existing tracks down Arbutus and wind its way downt to Marine Drive station, I'm sure that some commuters wouldn't mind a slower trip if there was less people but was equally as reliable.

We can't undo what we did to the Canada Line, so might as well introduce new infrastructure to serve with the Canada Line.

That has been thought of before, that the Arbutus streetcar could be a full running LRT line instead.

But the question is, how much would it actually relieve Canada Line congestion?



Mr.X, are you saying that adding more and longer trains will cause congestion, implying that is something we don't want?

I thought the goal here was to get more people using mass transportation, so in my opinion the more people crammed into the system, the better. This is why it is called "mass" transportation.

Using your logic, bigger platforms would also only provide a short term solution, as soon people will fill into that space aswell.

Besides, crowded stations will lead the government to feel that the system needs expansion and improvement, therefore bigger platforms and more lines.

That is something we want....the Broadway M-Line will be dumping tons of people onto the Canada Line. But the question is can the Canada Line handle that? Imagine a Broadway Station scenario, with people waiting for 3 or 4 trains just to get on. Nevertheless, any ridership growth is good.


What I said was a 40/50-metre platform is far from sufficient. Most metro systems around the world build longer platforms so that they can add more cars to the trains for additional future capacity. The Canada Line train is 41-metres long, most of the platforms will be 40-metres long, and all are expandable to 50-metres. What are you going to do with that 9-metres? That's smaller than a bus.

Ideally, the Canada Line should have been built with 80-metre platforms or at the very least 50-metre platforms but extendable in the future to 80-metres.

But it all comes down to poor planning...or rather, poorly flawed principles on how to build a rapid transit rail line on the part of the provincial government...counting nickels and pennies rather than just building it. The P3 system is flawed.




Besides, crowded stations will lead the government to feel that the system needs expansion and improvement, therefore bigger platforms and more lines.

They will definitely see it that way...but if we had built it right, all we would've needed to do was buy more cars instead of ripping up the system and roads apart again to extend the platforms or building another LRT line.

You're going to have people walk into a station in 2009. They will look left. They see a wall nearby. They will look right. They will see another wall nearby. And then they will think, "wtf?"

It can be best put that the Canada Line will be a victim of its own success.

[officedweller]

There should be ways of tweeking the Canada Line to accommodate future increases in ridership:

1 - increase train frequency
2 - short-turn or re-allocate train frequency to focus on heavily travelled sections (i.e. short-turn at Bridgeport or to serve M-Line transferees)
3 - reconfigure seats to allow more standing room (i.e. seats along the walls)
4 - buy more 2-car trains
5 - finish platforms to full 50m lenth and purchase intermediate cars to lengthen trains to 3 cars

[jlousa]

^^ exactly ^^
A 50M station could probably serve a 52-55M train, with the new trains also being wider that's a lot of capacity, this corridor is also a lot less populated then the expo/mill line corridors and scheduled to remain that way. With increased frequency techically possible every 45 seconds the line will serve us fine.

[deasine]

^^ exactly ^^
A 50M station could probably serve a 52-55M train, with the new trains also being wider that's a lot of capacity, this corridor is also a lot less populated then the expo/mill line corridors and scheduled to remain that way. With increased frequency techically possible every 45 seconds the line will serve us fine.

but you see then the problem is that the Canada Line cannot hanndle that train frequency because of all the single tracking at YVR and Richmond.

That has been thought of before, that the Arbutus streetcar could be a full running LRT line instead.

But the question is, how much would it actually relieve Canada Line congestion?

Well we don't have too many choices left. We can of course rebuild sections of the Canada Lien to include longer platforms, etc. but that will be $$$$$$. We can include more buses... but it won't attract more people to the system adding to the fact that buses don't move too quickly in Vancouver. Then we only have the Arbutus option left...

I think the city of Vancouver wanted a number of rapid transit lines to serve the downtown core including the SkyTrain E & M Line, Canada Line, and they were also looking for a SkyTrain type line for Burrard. Maybe instead of the Arubutus line going on Granville it can go underground to Waterfront Station?

The future LRT/Streetcar network I see:
http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/images/Phase0.gif
Route 1: From Waterfront Station underground Burrard St. then use existing rail tracks down Arbutus and end up at Marine Drive Station.
Route 2: (Circle Route) From Waterfront Station underground then goes above ground using the red phase (see map) - extend past Granville Island, goes underground using Route 1 tracks in downtown.
Route 3: From Granville St (blue line) to viaducts, then north using red line then onto the green line towards Stanley Park...


I'm sorry if my writing is really messy... just typing all my thoughts down all at once. I should have done a map. Anyways, the city of Vancouver is at an extent that maybe our Transit system can't handle the amount of people unless we build/introduce new fast and reliable services (i.e. LRT/Streetcar)...

[officedweller]

but you see then the problem is that the Canada Line cannot hanndle that train frequency because of all the single tracking at YVR and Richmond.

Waterfront station's platform is double tracked. It can handle the frequency.
Trains can be short-turned at Bridgeport at the south end of the line to provide a short headway between Bridgeport and Waterfront.
Much of the demand will be due to buses off-loading at Bridgeport. In addition, YVR trains would be largely empty during the morning rush hour.

Remember, downtown Vancouver isn't a huge draw in terms of jobs - there's a lot of cross-suburb commuting in the lower mainland. This isn't Toronto.
In addition, Richmond isn't slated to grow as big as Surrey because it's on a flood plain and will liquify in the big earthquake.

If there's a need, the Arbutus corridor can be used and plans formulated at that time.

[cornholio]

If our transit ridership is increased to 30% like planed then this line would not be even close to having enough capacity. If the status quo is maintained then this line should be fine for 20-30 years with the expansion to 50m.

Personally I think our transit ridership is going to increase much faster then some believe mainly because Vancouver has just about reached a critical mass and due to a lack of highways road expansion is impossible, add to this increasing gas prices and strong population growth and you are going to get a rapid increase in transit ridership. A new transit line in to downtown in 2010 is going to take of much quicker then a new transit line in 1986 in my opinion.

In any case its to late to do anything now so all we can do is wait and see.

[mr.x]

If our transit ridership is increased to 30% like planed then this line would not be even close to having enough capacity. If the status quo is maintained then this line should be fine for 20-30 years with the expansion to 50m.

Personally I think our transit ridership is going to increase much faster then some believe mainly because Vancouver has just about reached a critical mass and due to a lack of highways road expansion is impossible, add to this increasing gas prices and strong population growth and you are going to get a rapid increase in transit ridership. A new transit line in to downtown in 2010 is going to take of much quicker then a new transit line in 1986 in my opinion.

In any case its to late to do anything now so all we can do is wait and see.

Those are my thoughts as well.....i firmly believe that the Canada Line will take off really quickly. It will be a huge success....but in 10 years, I'm willing to bet that it will become a victim of its own success.

....unless there's an earthquake.

[Hot Rod]

I agree that the SkyTrain Canada Line (hey Im calling it that) will be much more successful than planners thought. Who cares that downtown isn't as huge of a job draw as Toronto's is, there's more to downtown than JUST JOBS, which in itself makes it the biggest draw in Metro Vancouver!!!

This brings a question that I dont understand. You go to most major cities around the world and their subway systems have express trains. Yet Vancouver's doesn't.

Why didn't we build in the capability of having express trains, you know - trains that would run past some of the smaller stations at certain times of the day?

I think, if we had express trains - we could probably increase ridership and get more people out of their cars. Because of this, why didn't we build this capability into skytrain CL? At least the Vancouver to Airport portion or at bare minimum, downtown to Bridgeport.??

What about the other SkyTrain lines? Why dont we have an express Surrey to Metrotown to Broadway to Main Street to the Downtown stations??? Why didn't we build this capability in and why is nobody talking about it?

I think Express Lines are a quick and EASY way to increase ridership.
Ive been in systems in Osaka and Nagoya (also Tokyo) where express trains still follow the same routing (although they use different track) but they just fly by 'local' stations, and local trains do the SkyTrain type of stop and go. That made it VERY VERY convenient for business and tourist to get around AS WELL AS the LOCAL residents who want their local stops. And of course, almost everybody in those cities take the transit.. ...

Would it be possible to have some express trains that are timed as such that they could use the existing track alignment? Could we do this?

[officedweller]

Express train systems would require passing tracks to bypass stations. i.e. 3 or 4 track systems - either full length or just around certain stations. That would add a lot to the cost, especially in tunnels.
There are storage tracks on the Skytrain line, but they are not co-located at stations which would allow them to be used as passing tracks. Even if they were co-located at stations, there aren't enough of them to bypass many stations.

[deasine]

I never really liked the "idea" of express trains unless of course there are many stations over a long distant... if we had the express trains running as normal trains, we would increase the frequency of the system overall. I would say this would be a much attractive system.

[Hot Rod]

that's what I was thinking deasine.

we could increase capacity by dedicating/adding a few trains as express as well as speed up travel for commuting pax. Like I said, the X trains would just go past 'local' stations, and stop only at the major ones; Surrey Central, Metrotown, Broadway, YVR, Bridgeport, Marine Dr., Broadway/City Hall, Main Street, Stadium/Chinatown, Yaletown, Granville, Robson, Burrard, Waterfront.

People taking these xpress trains would only stop at the above stations, bypassing the others. It would be very attractive to those who still believe that SkyTrain is slower/less convenient than driving and certainly would appeal to the office commuters into downtown (since they wouldn't have to stop at EVERY station.

And, if they need to get to a local station, they could just get off at an express stop, wait for a local/normal SkyTrain, and voila.

Anyways, there must be a way we could we could implement this now by timing the current/existing network. Maybe later we could build-in bypass tracks once ridership reaches the next critical level.

Perhaps also, these express trains could operate during rush hour periods and these express trains could be long (8-car Mark I, 6-car Mark II, 4-car Canada Line). Rush hour timing could be 6am-9am, 11am-1pm, 4pm-7pm; and during special events downtown.

Like I said, in my idea - we'd still have the "normal" SkyTrain service, its just that we'd have the longer Xpress variety timed such to be 'inserted' between existing runs and not stop at every station (except the major ones I listed).

For the Millennium Line extension, we could/should actually go ahead and build the bypass track. It could be as simple as inserting a track in the middle of the normal twin track at stations (starting several metres prior and after each station) so that a train can 'hop' onto the bypass and keep going. Eventually, we could implement the express bypass at all stations except those in downtown, Main Street, Broadway and City Hall, YVR, and certain other ones that are busy. We could also extend the platforms of YVR, Bridgeport, Marine, CityHall, and the downtown Canada Line stations later to accommodate the Longer express trains.

I dunno, I think this is a GREAT idea, how we could expand capacity without totally redoing the SkyTrain network and certainly would be more cost savvy.

but for start, we should be able to just put together long SkyTrain cars NOW, and insert them into the current runs during rush, letting them just bypass certain local stops, ala Montreal Metro seen here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=eUVc-qUf3Rg (see how it uses the SAME track, no bypass track - it just keeps going since the stop is a 'local' stop but the train is Express).

Why couldn't we start now with something ala the Montreal Metro clip, were LONG express trains use existing track, timed between existing 'normal' skytrains, in which these xpress trains bypass local stops. Then later, we can add in bypass tracks in the middle. The idea is - Add capacity, increase convenience for commuters, minimal cost - hopefully all translates into more usage of the network and MORE Rapid Transit NETWORK!!!!!

Am I on to something!!!>???

[raggedy13]

I think the height of the Amacon tower may have been substantially reduced... to about 145m. But who knows what will ultimately happen.

[Hed Kandi]

I think the height of the Amacon tower may have been substantially reduced... to about 145m. But who knows what will ultimately happen.

Do you have a rendering of it?

[raggedy13]

^Nope, sorry. I haven't even seen a proper rendering of it. Just a simple elevation.

[Canadian Mind]

Lame, the city isn't going to go anywhere skyline-wise if the heights for office towers keep getting cut back to below 150 meters.

what ever happened to the good old days where the office tower was a symbol of power, and was the largest, most bad-ass building in the city?

[LeftCoaster]

They still exist, just not here.

[officedweller]

If the system was designed and built to handle it, express trains would be great.

Some systems use a "skip-stop" system that I think is more problematic but also reduces travel time (at least for those going to certain stations) and can be implemented where there are no passing tracks. Skip-stop works by having certain trains stop at certain stations and other trains stop at the other stations with, I think, all trains stoppng at major stations.
i.e. say you have green trains and red trains. The green trains would stop at even numbered stations and the red trains would stop at odd numbered stations. Both red and green trains would stop at major transfer stations.
That's fine if you start and end your journey at an even or at an odd numbered station, but if you start at an odd station and end at an even station, or vice versa, you'd need to transfer to get to your final station. I'm not sure how much having all trains stop at the transfer stations delays the system in general.

[raggedy13]

Well at least as more office stock is added to the city total (short or tall), the less risky it gets for a developer to build a larger office building next cycle - ie adding 1mil s.f. to a downtown total of 21.5 mil has a greater impact on vacancy rate than adding 1mil s.f. to a downtown total of 25 mil, or 30 mil, or 50 mil, etc.

So if we could add a decent amount this cycle in a series of smaller office towers, we would likely see larger buildings next cycle. When that will be I don't know but who knows what the future holds for Vancouver business trends. Maybe our vacancy rate will keep decreasing leading up to and post-Olympics? So for the next 5 years or so. Maybe the market will be stronger than expected and we'll be able to absorb these first few office towers plus a nice ~150+m? Maybe some sort of major tenant will move into town over the next few years? Perhaps that's being too optimistic but you never know, with the upcoming Olympics this is a particularly unpredictable period for Vancouver.

If Microsoft could move into the Metro, why not other major corporations? Maybe Dubai Ports World will build their North American HQ here? Wishful thinking, I know.

[cornholio]

I think the height of the Amacon tower may have been substantially reduced... to about 145m. But who knows what will ultimately happen.

Thats good I thought that that site wasn't suited for a tall tower and something in 500-550foot range would of been much better as it would add more height variation to the skyline, create more of a dome effect and just fit in better. Though thats not to say that i am against tall towers or that i would of wanted a taller amacon tower proposal changed, but this is more of what I would prefer.

[djh]

Well at least as more office stock is added to the city total (short or tall), the less risky it gets for a developer to build a larger office building next cycle - ie adding 1mil s.f. to a downtown total of 21.5 mil has a greater impact on vacancy rate than adding 1mil s.f. to a downtown total of 25 mil, or 30 mil, or 50 mil, etc.

Erm, it's called Supply and Demand. If there is not enough supply of office space and an actual *demand* for downtown AAA office space, then the first person who builds to meet that demand will have the highest returns, and the lowest risk. The next person to build an office space is likely to have less demand than the previous person, and thus reap the same or lower return.


If Microsoft could move into the Metro, why not other major corporations? Maybe Dubai Ports World will build their North American HQ here? Wishful thinking, I know.

Unions, Taxes, very low productivity per person and high land cost make it more expensive to do business in Canada than the USA. BC moreso. Vancouver even moreso. So there is little incentive for many blue-chip international companies to make major inroads up here. Until those aforementioned barriers to business are abated, Vancouver will not attract that many head offices. Thus, no major office towers. Yes occasionally some big company moves a major office here, but it's usually for altruistic or personal reasons (e.g., the head of Concord Pacific is based in Hong Kong and his son & heir had Canadian citizenship, so that was handy). But if it's just purely a business decision, don't hold your breath.

[raggedy13]

Erm, it's called Supply and Demand. If there is not enough supply of office space and an actual *demand* for downtown AAA office space, then the first person who builds to meet that demand will have the highest returns, and the lowest risk. The next person to build an office space is likely to have less demand than the previous person, and thus reap the same or lower return.

I'm aware, but thanks. Either way my point still stands... 1 million s.f. is more readily absorbed into a market total of 30 million s.f. at 3% vacancy than 1 million s.f. into a market total of 20 million s.f. at 3% vacancy. Hence if in 25 years downtown has 30 million s.f. of office space and is undergoing a period of low vacancy (ie high demand) in the business cycle, it will be able to absorb a 600ft office tower more easily than it could today. If it can easily absorb such a tower, a developer is more likely to propose one.


Unions, Taxes, very low productivity per person and high land cost make it more expensive to do business in Canada than the USA. BC moreso. Vancouver even moreso. So there is little incentive for many blue-chip international companies to make major inroads up here. Until those aforementioned barriers to business are abated, Vancouver will not attract that many head offices. Thus, no major office towers. Yes occasionally some big company moves a major office here, but it's usually for altruistic or personal reasons (e.g., the head of Concord Pacific is based in Hong Kong and his son & heir had Canadian citizenship, so that was handy). But if it's just purely a business decision, don't hold your breath.

Believe me I'm well aware of Vancouver's shortfalls when it comes to attracting business, hence why I said "wishful thinking". But considering the fact that Microsoft came to the metro, it is clear that there are in fact some benefits to operating in Canada and Metro Vancouver. If Vancouver could get its act together it might be able to actually benefit from these advantages however minimal they may appear.

Land costs may be expensive but by international standards this is not a major issue for Vancouver. Also increased site density can help to ultimately offset such costs, assuming the demand is there to warrant greater density (this could be an issue given current COV policies on site densities). Productivity is also not a major issue on an international level as Canada is one of the most productive countries in the world - more so than most Western European nations. In relation to the US though of course Canada is somewhat at a disadvantage but historic trends are not fixed, the US will not always be as attractive as in the past. With their economy taking a major downturn and Canada's still thriving despite this (who knows for how much longer though), who knows what new trends could potentially develope?

Taxes of course are an issue and hopefully one that will be properly addressed one of these days. During the last tax hike, the City showed some mercy to business and kept their rates steady while residential taxes had to pick up the slack. It was a step in the right direction but clearly more drastic measures need to be taken. A lot of people these days seem to have already taken a defeatist attitude and assume that Vancouver will never be more than a resort city, but with the right policies in place, why couldn't Vancouver have the best of both worlds?

Another factor to take into account is homegrown businesses. Vancouver is one of the best cities in the country when it comes to generating startups. If the Province and City could come up with ways of effectively fostering such companies and allowing them to mature before being bought off by some foreign corporation, we wouldn't be as needy of outside interests setting up shop here. But obviously there is a whole other set of issues with this and it requires much more time to pass before seeing any results.

Anyways, I clearly went off on a tangent here. As you may be able to tell, I'm optimistic that Vancouver will one day be successful in more than just condo sales, but only time will tell.

[LeftCoaster]

^ Umm your statements about Canada are a tad off. Primarily corporate taxes in Canada are actually cheaper than in the United States, a common miscomception, as Canada actually has one of the lower corporate tax rates in the world; it is Canada's income taxes which are substantailly higher. Canada along with Australia and The netherlands are usually cited as some of the easiest countries to do business in as their beurocratic efficencies and tax options foster a very business friendly atmosphere.

Also I would disagree with you about the low productivity per person.... I mean really do we consider ourselves lazier than Americans?? Sure Vancouver has an aura of being a lazy hippy stoner city, but thats only becuase there are a large number of people who choose to live that lifestyle. The people who are actually involved in corporate Vancouver are no less motivated than any other across the world.

Unions as well have limited impact on the number of corporations HQ'd in Vancouver as unions are generally shut out of teh corporate world, and are much more of a factor in industrial activites. It could be argued that union presences in Vancouver stifle industrial growth, leading to very little homegrown corporations headquarted in Vancouver, however these industrial companies gerenally have smaller office spaces, as the majority of their business is located elsewhere, and therefore would not have a large impact.

Real estate prices are certainly one of the major factors effecting Vancouver's lack of office space, as is competition from neighbouring Calgary which is a city that is much more desirable to many companies due to it's lower taxes and business friendly attitude. If one beleives Richard Florida than this trend will certainly turn around for Vancouver, but as much as I would like to beleive in the power of the cultural class I just dont see the intensity of change which Florida predicted. Vancouver will no doubt benefit from footloose corporations moving operations to Vanocuver due to its desirability, however I just dont see enough proof that it will happen to any major extent.

Vancouver's only hope in regaining its regional dominance is to continue to decrease corporate taxes and offer other financial incentives for corporations to bring their business to Vancouver. There is little doubt that many companies would like to do more business in Vancouver as it is a desirable city for both upper managment and the rest of teh staff, however for many firms it is just not financially feasable. If Vancouver can make itself an attractive destination for firms financially, not just astheitcally, then I think it will really flourish as a business hub... esepcially with its close ties to Asia.