Suburban Updates

[MBPMAN]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

is that near the best western site? on north road.

I know they are closing soon and will redevelop with 6 towers.

Yes this is the best western site. I Hadn't heard it was being redeveloped.

[SpongeG]

yea it is. I know they wanted to do it years ago but never went ahead and now someone bought it recently with plans to redevelop it and will be doing so in the next couple of years.

[urbancanadian]

Originally Posted by MBPMAN

Is there a page of this? Found this snooping around their website. Looks to be some office / retail and a ~150ft tower.

https://anthemproperties.com/content...5_SitePlan.pdf

Here's what I know, and what you can see in their plans. The Best Western site is being built in three phases, with the first phase consisting of two towers over an office podium. The City of Coquitlam is planning a finer-grained road network for the area, which includes an extension of Alderson Avenue northwest fronting Highway 1, then north through the site.

From their map it looks like Delestre Avenue will end at Alderson with the rest of the road ROW closed and added to the overall site. Here's a crude map I made explaining:



Anthem also recently bought an adjacent property (outlined in yellow) so it's possible that they could combine the two into one large project with more than three phases. I would also expect the towers to go higher than 150'. The red lines are part of the planned road network for the area.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

I often wonder what that pile of concrete blocks for? It must have been there almost a year. I am highly skeptical though in the event of violent ground shaking during an earth quake, would it not loosen? After all they are just compacted artificially... not some natural solid rock form from prehistory.

Compacted soils remain stable unless disturbed by motion - an earthquake would provide that. Otherwise, they remain stable indefinitely and can carry whatever dead load they can/were designed for.

There is no difference between natural and artificially compactions.

The shaking of an earthquake will certainly break apart compacted soils, and even more so if there is groundwater present: hence liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when soil particles are loosened by vibrating forces such that groundwater (having its own force of pressure depending on its location/depth) flows into the voids between the loosened particles.

The goal of seismic engineering is not always to preserve the structure in tact. Rather, in a situation like Richmond, the aim is to maximize surviveability. The structure should handle the earthquake such that its occupants, including people outside in the vicinity, are a) not killed by catastrophic failures (Engineering term), b) the structure holds up such that escape can be achieved, and C) the dangers of other building systems are isolated and kept at bay for at least the period of escape/rescue.

After it's all over, I would expect a lot of Richmond's buildings will have to be demolished. All of this is similar to the aim of other safety codes, notably the National Fire Code. Maintaining viability of the structure long enough for surviveability through escape or rescue. Then it switches to maintaining structural integrity for the safety of search & rescue and fire teams.

[Skygazer]

Originally Posted by Marshal

After it's all over, I would expect a lot of Richmond's buildings will have to be demolished. All of this is similar to the aim of other safety codes, notably the National Fire Code. Maintaining viability of the structure long enough for surviveability through escape or rescue. Then it switches to maintaining structural integrity for the safety of search & rescue and fire teams.

I imagine this is the case in most of the region (not just Richmond, though it's obviously more likely there due to liquefiable land).

Even for buildings that are still structurally sound after an earthquake, I imagine there will be many individual units that will require extensive repairs and renovations afterwards. A lot of that floor-to-ceiling glass is probably gonna come down and leave the inside exposed to the elements for weeks afterwards, not to mention to potential smoke/fire/water damage within the building.

[Olden Retreiver]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

The nimby lords on Port Moody city council rejected a 3-tower Arno Matis proposal for this site. They thought Port Moody was growing too fast, so they got their way and slowed growth to a pitiful 540 people from 2011-2016.








Source

"NIMBY Lords" is a bit of an oversimplification. Beautiful as it is, I believe this proposal was rejected back in 2008, when Onni said they would immediately build the hotel on Ioco Road if the land use contract was revised to allow these 3 taller towers instead of the 2 smaller ones that will soon be on the site.

If there had been any certainly about Skytrain at that time, this would have been easily passed by Port Moody council.

[Olden Retreiver]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

I want to see something go up at the top of that area in Port Moody beside Inlet Centre station.. it's been vacant for so long!

Appia had a very attractive 24-storey (the high at allowable at the time) tower fully approved for that site way back in 2006. I believe it was residential only.

Expect them to come back with something somewhat larger now that Skytrain is up and running.

[officedweller]

On the other side of Port Moody - here's the application for the Andres site near the tunnel portal:


http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?p...&recordid=6969

Westport Village (former Andres Wines site)

Density

The total gross floor area proposed for the site is 67,389m2 (725,390 sq.ft.) if all components are
fully built out. This equates to a gross floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.33.

This is relatively dense development for Port Moody. For example, the 5.5 ha (13.5 ac)
Newport Village site has a gross FAR of 2.06, the 8.9 ha (22.0 ac) Suterbrook Village site has a
gross FAR of 1.62 (or 2.2 with the greenway excluded) and the 11.3 ha (28.0 ac) Klahanie
neighbourhood has a gross FAR of 1.96. While not approved, the draft Coronation Park
Neighbourhood Plan endorsed by Council has an FAR of 2.25 but is within 400 metres of the
Inlet Centre rapid transit station. The proposed Flavelle Oceanfront development under
consideration has a gross FAR of 2.82, and the majority of that site is located within 800m (10
minute walk) of the Moody Centre Skytrain Station.

The Westport Village site is located 1.3 kilometres away from the Moody Centre Station and as
such does not meet the transit proximity criteria of 400-800m in the OCP to be considered a
transit oriented development site which can support a high density mixed use development.
The applicant has made reference to a future potential SkyTrain station near Queens Street,
however, there are no plans within TransLink's 30 year vision to build a station in this location.
The applicant has proposed a transit shuttle from Westport Village to the Moody Centre station.
Staff have requested further information regarding responsibility for the shuttle, formalizing the.
commitment, route, time of day, numbers of people to be moved, etc., but at the time of writing
this report have not received a response.

Staff believe that the proposed development density is very high and should be scaled back to
reflect that it does not meet the criteria to be considered a transit-oriented development which
can support high density, mixed use. This scaling back should be primarily on the residential
side, but may also involve a decrease in the proposed commercial space depending on the
results of a more detailed commercial market analysis.

As noted above, the plan proposes 418 residential units (including 34 assisted living units),
which is an average of 205 units per hectare (83 units per acre (UPA)). In comparison, the UPA
counts are 41 at Klahanie, 67 at Newport Village, and 76 at Suterbrook. The Council endorsed
Coronation Park Neighbourhood Plan has a UPA count of 98. Staff believe that the number of
residential units at the Westport Village site should be revisited to be more in keeping with other
development areas in the City with a similar context, that are outside of the core transit-oriented
development area.

Building Forms

Westport Village proposes a range of building forms including:
• one 32-storey tower consisting of up to 25 storeys of residential condos above six
storeys of boutique hotel;
• one 21-storey mixed use tower including 15 to 17 storeys of rental housing, four storeys
of office space, an athletic club and a large grocery store;
• one 12-storey mixed use tower including eight storeys of seniors' housing, two to three
storeys of seniors' care facilities and common areas, ground floor retail uses, and two
levels of light industrial space below grade;
• one six-storey mixed use building including four to five storeys of clinic space, ground
floor retail, and linkages to the proposed hotel;
• one three-storey building identified as the Westport Arts Centre including ground floor
arts oriented office space, second floor flex space, and top floor daycare centre; and
• five two- to three-storey buildings identified as the Arts Village including artist work
space, shops, galleries, and residences.

As noted, a tower as high as 32 storeys is proposed, which exceeds the current height limit of
towers in Newport Village, Suterbrook Village and Klahanie which are capped at 26 storeys.
The applicant's rationale for the taller building heights is to open up more of the ground plane,
which provides a greater separation between buildings, more room for parks and other open
space, as well as improved view corridors.

Staff have concerns over the appropriateness of the scale of the proposed buildings, given the
context of much lower residential building heights in the generally single family Moody Centre
area surrounding the site. The proposed significant building forms in this area also raise
concerns over the issue of a high density precedent being located outside of the established
TOD areas, where transit infrastructure can best support such a population increase.

http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?p...&recordid=6969



http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?p...&recordid=6969


http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?p...&recordid=6969


http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?p...&recordid=6969


http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?p...&recordid=6969


http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?p...&recordid=6969

For Reference:
The site lies just outside the Future Queen St. Station location (but not really far away).


http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?page=313

[rickvug]

New West updates

I was looking at the latest Land Use Planning meeting agenda and found a long list of projects that I haven't seen discussed here. I'm too lazy to make full posts for each so I'll just provide brief summaries along with a gallery of screen grabs. If anyone wants to flesh this out with full posts and full inline images be my guest. Exciting times in the Royal City. I'm happy to see that the pace of development doesn't seem to be slowing down.

618 Carnarvon Street
Gallery: http://imgur.com/a/kJkqJ
City info page: https://www.newwestcity.ca/planning-...icles/5830.php

Description from the consultation page:
Rezoning and a Special Development Permit applications have been submitted in order to build a 33 storey mixed use, commercial multi-unit residential development at 618 Carnarvon Street. The additional density proposed is partially based on using the City's existing density bonusing policies. The proposed density is a floor space ratio of 6.2. The development will include a small park on the corner of Sixth and Clarkson Street.

The controversy with this development is that it is above and beyond the city's density bonusing scheme. If my memory serves correctly the maximum height is supposed to be 25 stories. The developer is offering to enclose part of the Skytrain tracks and is making a case that the extra cost of doing so and the provision of a small community square warrants the additional density.



**********

813 Carnarvon Street
Gallery: http://imgur.com/a/VBiWT

This looks to be a really exciting looking tower directly across from New West Skytrain station. This site had a different proposal a few years ago that didn't go anywhere. This time a different developer is taking a different approach. The current max FSR is 5.2. The developer is proposing 1.28 of non-market rental for an additional 1.28 FSR in market residential, bringing the total density up to 7.75 FSR. The non-market portion would be run by the Performing Arts Lodges (PAL - see http://palvancouver.org). From what I can gather PAL provides housing for seniors coming from a performing arts background.



**********


514 Carnarvon (Holy Trinity Cathedral)
Gallery: http://imgur.com/a/O34bS

This is a revised version of a Heritage Revitalization Agreement that was previously rejected. The church would like to build a tower to pay for restoration. City staff still have problems with this application for a few reasons. It looks like a very constrained site with other towers right next door and the OCP doesn't contemplate a tower in this location.



**********

618 Sixth Street
Gallery: http://imgur.com/a/L0JfL

A new tower proposed in Uptown on 6th Street, right next to Royal City Centre (where the waffle house is now). This one is completely new to me. The widened sidewalk area and small plaza look to be a great addition. The renders reference a Cactus Club and an Aldo. No clue if those are placeholders or confirmed tenants.



**********

837-841 12th Street
Gallery: http://imgur.com/a/V2bDi

New to me. Good to see 12th Street getting some love. I hope that this goes through with commercial. I wouldn't be surprised if this development gets reworked. The draft OCP suggests that some portions of upper 12th Street become residential only without a requirement for commercial. Personally I think it would be a shame if they didn't try to keep up commercial down the whole stretch.



**********

1002-1020 Auckland Street
Gallery: http://imgur.com/a/zeHO4

This has been working its way through the process for a while now, it may have already been posted. It looks like a great mix of townhouses and a high proportion of family friendly units. Not in downtown New West but very close to Skytrain being off 10th Street. Interesting approach to addressing the hill. I'm not sure if it is entirely successful - it looks large for a supposedly 6 story wood frame building.

[LeftCoaster]

Wow great update, glad to see thing chugging along in New west.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by rickvug

New West updates

618 Carnarvon Street
Gallery: http://imgur.com/a/kJkqJ
City info page: https://www.newwestcity.ca/planning-...icles/5830.php

Description from the consultation page:
Rezoning and a Special Development Permit applications have been submitted in order to build a 33 storey mixed use, commercial multi-unit residential development at 618 Carnarvon Street. The additional density proposed is partially based on using the City's existing density bonusing policies. The proposed density is a floor space ratio of 6.2. The development will include a small park on the corner of Sixth and Clarkson Street.

The controversy with this development is that it is above and beyond the city's density bonusing scheme. If my memory serves correctly the maximum height is supposed to be 25 stories. The developer is offering to enclose part of the Skytrain tracks and is making a case that the extra cost of doing so and the provision of a small community square warrants the additional density.

There's an additional reason behind the community square (which would be owned by the tower owner but have a covenant on it requiring it to stay open to the public), it's that this development would also require the city sell some of Clarkson Street to the owner. It's only 815 square feet though.

I like this development. There are some shops in these buildings currently (most notably Brick & Mortar) and I hope that the commercial spaces get good uptake. There are a number of vacant commercial spaces within that block, most notably directly across the street at Sixth & Carnarvon. Hopefully the increased foot traffic from residents in this building will help with that.

I like too that it's putting a cover over the SkyTrain line there, making things a little quieter for local residents.

One thing I would like to see is a reduction in the parking spaces they're proposing. The space requires 285 but they're proposing 338. For a building that's right downtown and within two blocks of two SkyTrain stations, that's a bit much.

[officedweller]

Thanks for the updates.
We had seen a rendering of the Holy Trinity Cathedral proposal, but hadn't heard anything in a couple years(?)

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

There's an additional reason behind the community square (which would be owned by the tower owner but have a covenant on it requiring it to stay open to the public), it's that this development would also require the city sell some of Clarkson Street to the owner. It's only 815 square feet though.

I like this development. There are some shops in these buildings currently (most notably Brick & Mortar) and I hope that the commercial spaces get good uptake. There are a number of vacant commercial spaces within that block, most notably directly across the street at Sixth & Carnarvon. Hopefully the increased foot traffic from residents in this building will help with that.

I like too that it's putting a cover over the SkyTrain line there, making things a little quieter for local residents.

One thing I would like to see is a reduction in the parking spaces they're proposing. The space requires 285 but they're proposing 338. For a building that's right downtown and within two blocks of two SkyTrain stations, that's a bit much.

I like this development as well. It will be much nicer than what is there and will add energy to what should be a very busy corner in a few years. Agreed on reducing parking requirements. Build for fewer cars and you'll get fewer cars. Build excess capacity and you'll either get more cars or a half empty parkade (that was very expensive to build).

One of my favourite parts is how it respects the old Fisheries Building. The contrast between old and new makes NW feel like a "real city" compared to the newer Regional City Centres. It would be nice if they could consolidate the property into the development and convert it to a quirky little restaurant with a surrounding patio space.

Do you happen to know what planning's policy is on height? I thought that Downtown New West had something like a 25 story height limit for towers (lower on Columbia). Both this development and 313 Carnarvon are trying to use their own unique justifications on why they deserve the extra height and density. I think RiverSky may have also played this game and won, using Plaza 88 as the benchmark. I don't have a problem with the height in this case, just the silly song and dance about it. It makes me wonder about council talking about 660 Quayside being a unique situation and not precedent setting. I don't see any of these height caps sticking once they build to 53 stories!

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks for the updates.
We had seen a rendering of the Holy Trinity Cathedral proposal, but hadn't heard anything in a couple years(?)

That is correct. They have reduced the scale a bit this time around but the project still isn't supported by planning. The primary reason is that the private benefit of the rezoning is much greater than the public benefit of restoration and designation of the historic church. It also doesn't conform to the Downtown Plan and the tower would be fairly close to a neighbouring towers on 6th Street. Personally I hope they find a way to make it work.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by rickvug

Do you happen to know what planning's policy is on height? I thought that Downtown New West had something like a 25 story height limit for towers (lower on Columbia). Both this development and 313 Carnarvon are trying to use their own unique justifications on why they deserve the extra height and density. I think RiverSky may have also played this game and won, using Plaza 88 as the benchmark. I don't have a problem with the height in this case, just the silly song and dance about it. It makes me wonder about council talking about 660 Quayside being a unique situation and not precedent setting. I don't see any of these height caps sticking once they build to 53 stories!

I don't think there are any height caps, just density caps. This page says that there are three buildings downtown that are over 25 stories, with two more under construction and three more proposed (including the two at 660 Quayside). That page doesn't have the fourth tower at the New West SkyTrain station either, that's going to be 38 towers.

[Klazu]

New towers in North Vancouver, nearby Lions Gate Bridge. They are currently under name Park West at Lions Gate.


http://vancouverpresales.com/

Adding to that, a new tower in West Vancouver called Bellevue.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by rickvug

New West updates837-841 12th Street
Gallery: http://imgur.com/a/V2bDi

New to me. Good to see 12th Street getting some love. I hope that this goes through with commercial. I wouldn't be surprised if this development gets reworked. The draft OCP suggests that some portions of upper 12th Street become residential only without a requirement for commercial. Personally I think it would be a shame if they didn't try to keep up commercial down the whole stretch.

Ehhh.... Not exactly fond of this type of infill... But we'll see. Usually they end up looking not that great due to the developer trying to save money throughout.

[phesto]

^Palm trees in North Van on the podium to the North of the taller tower? Sure, why not!

[SpongeG]

The article goes on to say that they are looking or hoping for a new hotel to be built in the Coquitlam City Centre area. AFAIK they are no hotels n that area, most of them are all in the north road area.

Coquitlam to lose a hotel for five high rises

Anthem Properties is planning its first development in Coquitlam.
Janis Cleugh / Tri City News
March 14, 2017 10:35 AM

- See more at: http://www.tricitynews.com/news/coqu....M8ExiCgi.dpuf

Coquitlam will soon lose a hotel.

This month, staff at the Best Western Plus Coquitlam Inn Convention Centre on North Road were told the facility would close next year to make way for a mega-residential/commercial development, to be built by Anthem Properties — a company with a considerable portfolio with land holdings in Metro Vancouver, Victoria and Alberta as well as the United States.

A spokesperson for Anthem Properties declined to comment on its 4.5-acre acquisition and the general manager of Best Western Plus did not immediately return a call Tuesday; however, Jim McIntyre, Coquitlam's general manager of planning and development, told The Tri-City News that Anthem has applications into the city to change the land use at 319 North Rd. that would see the hotel razed and construction of five apartment towers with 65,000 sq. ft of commercial space below.

The bid call for 400 new homes in the high rises — ranging from 23 to 46 storeys tall — in the Lougheed neighbourhood, which is currently undergoing a visioning study by the municipality in conjunction with the Burquitlam neighbourhood.

Anthem's rezoning application is expected to be before city council before the summer break. "It's a pretty ambitious project," McIntyre said, noting the proposed development would be a first for Anthem in Coquitlam.

Still, the upcoming disappearance of the hotel will hurt economic development and tourism — both for Coquitlam and the Tri-Cities, said Michael Hind, CEO of the Tri-Cities Chamber Commerce.

With the hotel gone, the region will only have five hotels (Best Western Chelsea Inn, Executive Plaza Hotel, Coquitlam Sleepy Lodge, Ramada Coquitlam and PoCo Inn and Suites Hotel) to serve a population of nearly 200,000.

"This will put a strain on the hotel space that we already have," Hind said, "and it's not a very positive message to send out that we may have difficulty accommodating our out-of-town guests."

He added, "We have built some great civic facilities here, especially for sports, but teams could be squeezed out and stay in Surrey and Burnaby instead. What that means is they won't be spending their dollars here and we won't be getting those economic spinoffs."

But Pasha Sheikh, general manager of the Executive Inn Hotel in Coquitlam, argued the loss of his nearby competitor "isn't a big issue. We don't have 100% occupancy and right now, it's soft. I don't know how much of an impact this will have. We may have some spike but not that we should be concerned about."

Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart said he's hopeful the long-awaited hotel at Hard Rock Casino Vancouver will go up "relatively quickly" to replace the Best Western on North Road.

In a statement, Raj Mutti, vice president of western operations for the parent company, Great Canadian Gaming Corp., told The Tri-City News, "We are still very interested in the development of a hotel at our Hard Rock Casino Vancouver property and we are continuing to explore multiple options to bring such a development to the marketplace."

Coquitlam's economic development manager David Munro said city staff and council are trying to attract hoteliers to the city — the sixth largest in the province — and hope to spread out the properties more out geographically (currently, the Coquitlam hotels are clustered in the Lougheed/Burquitlam neighbourhoods).

...

- See more at: http://www.tricitynews.com/news/coqu....M8ExiCgi.dpuf

[red-paladin]

Thanks for the article