Richmond: Suburban Sprawl?

[Vancity]

Is Richmond headed this way? While I live here, and see that the city has grown tremendously, I find that the current building height restrictions will eventually catch up to the city. Don't get me wrong, I think Richmond has densified quite a bit, considering where it was 8-10 years ago. But because of the restrictions, will Richmond head towards sprawl? I hope not.

Thoughts?

Personally, I think Richmond's a great place to live. Could there be improvements? Definitely, it's far from perfect, but the city's still very young (much like Vancouver, in comparison to other 'great' cities of the world).

**maybe the title of this thread should've been "richmond: suburban sprawl?" sorry

[raggedy13]

You ask if Richmond is headed towards sprawl. I'd say that Richmond is/was already sprawl and is now densifying and so is presumedly heading in the opposite direction.

Looking ahead 100 years its height limits may eventually retard population growth but the current height limits allow for more than European level densities which should more than do the trick for the foreseeable future while allowing a pretty livable urban fabric. In other words there is nothing stopping it from becoming an impressive, urban city in its own right.

p.s. The thread title has been changed.

[Vancity]

You ask if Richmond is headed towards sprawl. I'd say that Richmond is/was already sprawl and is now densifying and so is presumedly heading in the opposite direction.

Looking ahead 100 years its height limits may eventually retard population growth but the current height limits allow for more than European level densities which should more than do the trick for the foreseeable future while allowing a pretty livable urban fabric. In other words there is nothing stopping it from becoming an impressive, urban city in its own right.

p.s. The thread title has been changed.

hm. i wonder what constitutes sprawl? i'm glad though, that richmond is taking action and is now densifying, and heading to the opposite direction. i do hope that richmond becomes an impressive urban city one day. thanks raggedy for your insight :)

i wonder if the building height restrictions would be relaxed a bit to allow the building of higher residences/office towers? what's the current height limit in richmond now, anyways?

[agrant]

Do you want to see taller (i.e., 30 floor) buildings? I like the fact Richmond is more of a mid-rise city. I'd rather see 10 mid-rises than 4 talls.

[worldwide]

the height limit is because of the airport.

anyways. richmond cant sprawl much more because of the ALR. i would be surprised if theres any significant parcel of open land left for development actually.

if richmond intends to have any growth it will be through increased density. theres 2 ways of doing this. high density sprawl, or a dense urban environment. seems they have already chosen the latter.

[Vancity]

the height limit is because of the airport.

anyways. richmond cant sprawl much more because of the ALR. i would be surprised if theres any significant parcel of open land left for development actually.

if richmond intends to have any growth it will be through increased density. theres 2 ways of doing this. high density sprawl, or a dense urban environment. seems they have already chosen the latter.

I see. What would high density sprawl look like? Are there examples of cities that do this? I understand that the height limits are because of the close proximity to the airport, but I wonder whether they'll increase the heights, so that the buildings are not always the same height (get some variety in terms of height in there). I remember reading an article from the Richmond Review (a very brief one) about the possibility of increasing the building heights, so that density can be concetrated even more around Richmond's downtown (No. 3 rd area).

[LeftCoaster]

High density sprawl would be the tower in the park idea... no street front retail or podiums. better than low density sprawl imo but still pretty weak.

[Vancity]

High density sprawl would be the tower in the park idea... no street front retail or podiums. better than low density sprawl imo but still pretty weak.

Thanks for the explanation :)

[Metro-One]

The funny thing about living in metro-Vancouver is we lose sight of what true sprawl is. This weekend i took my girlfriend and her friend down to the outlet malls north of Seattle, and that drive really puts things back into perspective. The sprawl in Burlington especially is depressing. The streets are incredibly wide, the parking lots huge (i swear businesses in the states have 2X or more the parking stalls than we have) and the businesses few and far between. It is horrible, because you never know when you are in a rural or urban area. Even Surrey can not hold a candle to American style sprawl. It is really hard to describe, but when you go there you can see and feel the difference. My girlfriend's friend who just came from Japan immediately felt the difference. On are way back in her broken english she told me American cities are ugly, i had to laugh, and that she never knew there was so much difference between Canada and America. I expect someone one here to reply that there is no difference between American and Canadian cities, but there is, and you can really feel it once you cross the border.

[CoryHolmes]

and you can really feel it once you cross the border.

The solution is simple, then: never cross the border :D

[Vancity]

The funny thing about living in metro-Vancouver is we lose sight of what true sprawl is. This weekend i took my girlfriend and her friend down to the outlet malls north of Seattle, and that drive really puts things back into perspective. The sprawl in Burlington especially is depressing. The streets are incredibly wide, the parking lots huge (i swear businesses in the states have 2X or more the parking stalls than we have) and the businesses few and far between. It is horrible, because you never know when you are in a rural or urban area. Even Surrey can not hold a candle to American style sprawl. It is really hard to describe, but when you go there you can see and feel the difference. My girlfriend's friend who just came from Japan immediately felt the difference. On are way back in her broken english she told me American cities are ugly, i had to laugh, and that she never knew there was so much difference between Canada and America. I expect someone one here to reply that there is no difference between American and Canadian cities, but there is, and you can really feel it once you cross the border.

I have to agree with this assessment. I can't say for other cities, but in Vancouver, it seems like we're not so easily willing to use land that's laying around, and sprawling all over the place. A lot of American cities are like that. It's not about building (necessarily) up (NYC is probably an exception, they have skyscrapers all over the place). Vancouver, I feel is a lot like a lot of asian cities, where condos/apartments are going up almost everywhere, it's not even just about the downtown (even though that's where the majority of the condos & apartments are). Single housing units are still around, of course, but they are slowly being replaced by multi-housing units :)

[DKaz]

Seattle city centre itself isn't that bad... but once you head out in the suburbs my goodness. I would agree that Surrey is not that bad but it's the new development in former agricultural/wooded land that's getting up there.

Edmonton and Calgary however... two examples of very American like cities. The massive South Common development in Edmonton is disgusting.

[Coldrsx]

Seattle city centre itself isn't that bad... but once you head out in the suburbs my goodness. I would agree that Surrey is not that bad but it's the new development in former agricultural/wooded land that's getting up there.

Edmonton and Calgary however... two examples of very American like cities. The massive South Common development in Edmonton is disgusting.

^yup

Edm/Cal are curbing sprawl, but we simply have 2 major hurdles to overcome that van really doesnt:

1. infinite land
2. (apparent) infinite appetite for that land

People enjoy Edm and Cal because they CAN have their own 50x100 and white picket fences. It is unfortunate but true.

As for Richmond, I would agree with a few comments above as to how Richmond is actually improving and reducing sprawl. Just look back 5-10 yrs ago compared to now. Wait until the Concord/Pin development and the one mall on # 3 is redeveloped... night and day once again. Not to mention that with the skytrain now there, it has the infrastructure to support more density whereas before i might question that (go down #3 in rush hour or sat)

[Metro-One]

There are a few intersections now in Richmond that are becoming very vibrant and dense and they make you think you are in a much larger city. Again my girlfriend and her friend (both Japanese) said that driving down #3 road looks a lot like Japan. I agree, first every sign has chinese characters on it, there are many more lighting effects being built, there is an elevated train guide-way running down the side of the street (very common in Japan) there are many towers but they are all below 20 stories (also very common in Japan) and even the TD bank has the market info scrolling along the outside, just to give it that extra Japanese push. Richmond is quickly becoming my favorite suburb. That is what is great about Metro-Van, we don't just have a great downtown, but we also have many sub-cores with their own flavor: New Westminster, Metrotown, Richmond, the North Shore, Coquitlam, Surrey City Center, etc... This is also why vancouver feels so much bigger than it is. I honestly feel like there must be a million illegal immigrants in Metro-Vancouver because it feels so much larger than 2.3 million.

[Vancity]

There are a few intersections now in Richmond that are becoming very vibrant and dense and they make you think you are in a much larger city. Again my girlfriend and her friend (both Japanese) said that driving down #3 road looks a lot like Japan. I agree, first every sign has chinese characters on it, there are many more lighting effects being built, there is an elevated train guide-way running down the side of the street (very common in Japan) there are many towers but they are all below 20 stories (also very common in Japan) and even the TD bank has the market info scrolling along the outside, just to give it that extra Japanese push. Richmond is quickly becoming my favorite suburb. That is what is great about Metro-Van, we don't just have a great downtown, but we also have many sub-cores with their own flavor: New Westminster, Metrotown, Richmond, the North Shore, Coquitlam, Surrey City Center, etc... This is also why vancouver feels so much bigger than it is. I honestly feel like there must be a million illegal immigrants in Metro-Vancouver because it feels so much larger than 2.3 million.

I think Richmond has the potential to become a much more vibrant city :)

[Vancity]

^yup

Edm/Cal are curbing sprawl, but we simply have 2 major hurdles to overcome that van really doesnt:

1. infinite land
2. (apparent) infinite appetite for that land

People enjoy Edm and Cal because they CAN have their own 50x100 and white picket fences. It is unfortunate but true.

As for Richmond, I would agree with a few comments above as to how Richmond is actually improving and reducing sprawl. Just look back 5-10 yrs ago compared to now. Wait until the Concord/Pin development and the one mall on # 3 is redeveloped... night and day once again. Not to mention that with the skytrain now there, it has the infrastructure to support more density whereas before i might question that (go down #3 in rush hour or sat)

Yep. I have to agree with that as well. Richmond is improving, growing. With regards to the Concord/Pinnacle development, I believe that's on hold, or the whole development might not go through (that's the development near the Canadian Tire on No. 3 rd, right?). There was an article posted somewhere (sorry, I forgot where) on these boards. Maybe someone can dig it up and post it up for Coldrsx? With regards to the mall redevelopment, are you talking about Aberdeen, or is there another mall that your talking about (i.e. Parker Place, Lansdowne, Richmond Centre?)

Personally, I'm pretty excited about Aberdeen, that has the potential to be a place to hang out, and I don't understand why Richmond Centre and Lansdowne aren't multi-floored malls, like Aberdeen is. You can fit so much more, and the potential to do so much more. Unfortunately, though, during the weekdays, Aberdeen is pretty dead. Saturdays, and Sundays are crazy, though - almost impossible to find parking on those days.

[deasine]

That development is on a hold right now and I was expecting that to be the case. The recession's putting a big hit on the developments in Vancouver... well in the world. Aberdeen Centre also canceled it's hotel expansion, only opting for a mall expansion (there could be space made for a future hotel though).

While Aberdeen is nice, I think fairchild is making the lease rates way too much. The last time I heard it, it costs just about the same as Richmond Centre. Stores are starting to fill in the gaps in the mall... but a lot of them are still owned by Fairchild themselves.

Lansdowne and Richmond Centre was built WAY BACK. You can't compare it to Aberdeen Centre.

[Vancity]

That development is on a hold right now and I was expecting that to be the case. The recession's putting a big hit on the developments in Vancouver... well in the world. Aberdeen Centre also canceled it's hotel expansion, only opting for a mall expansion (there could be space made for a future hotel though).

While Aberdeen is nice, I think fairchild is making the lease rates way too much. The last time I heard it, it costs just about the same as Richmond Centre. Stores are starting to fill in the gaps in the mall... but a lot of them are still owned by Fairchild themselves.

Lansdowne and Richmond Centre was built WAY BACK. You can't compare it to Aberdeen Centre.

Renovate? hehe :P

[Coldrsx]

Vancity - i am well aware of it being on hold... but the plan will go eventually in a similar form, regardless of owner/developer.

As for the other mall, I was referencing Landsdowne and how it is ripe for a tear down and development similar to what happened here with westbank/procura on an underused mall.

www.centurypark.ca

[SpongeG]

they can't expand out that much more and they as an area in the GVRD are not suppossed to absorb that much growth are they?

the GVRD set areas that need to absorb x amount of growth

[Vancity]

they can't expand out that much more and they as an area in the GVRD are not suppossed to absorb that much growth are they?

the GVRD set areas that need to absorb x amount of growth

Why would the GVRD do such a thing? Why would they limit growth in certain areas? What purpose would that serve?

[officedweller]

Richmond is in a flood plain and will liquify in the big earthquake - the targets are to prevent massive death and destruction. The "growth concentration areas" are all on bedrock - Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey.

[Vancity]

Richmond is in a flood plain and will liquify in the big earthquake - the targets are to prevent massive death and destruction. The "growth concentration areas" are all on bedrock - Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey.

I see. So what the limit for Richmond, in terms of the GVRD allowing growth?

[officedweller]

No absolute fixed limit, since development is up to the municipality. Just not designated as a growth area.

[Vancity]

No absolute fixed limit, since development is up to the municipality. Just not designated as a growth area.

what does this mean, then?

[Coldrsx]

makes no sense to me

[nickinacan]

Actually, Metro Vancouver (GVRD) approves community planning. Meaning that it approves the general aspects of how a certain area will develop. It is up to the city to follow through with the plan and designate zoning accordingly. So essentially, the GVRD does have control over sprawl utilizing the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and the Community Planning. They are quite strict when it comes to both policies.

[Stingray2004]

Came across a BC government press release today and saw this tidbit contained therein:

The population of Richmond is expected to increase 70 per cent by 2021.

[nickinacan]

Came across a BC government press release today and saw this tidbit contained therein:

Well Richmond is supposed to be a growth area, but it will densify rather than spread. This doesn't just mean going up, but it also means subdividing large residential lots. There's a reason why the skytrain was extended out to Richmond, and this is one of them.

[Vancity]

Came across a BC government press release today and saw this tidbit contained therein:

Wow. That's quite the growth. What's the population of Richmond now? I think it's around 188,000 people (approx - give or take a few thousand, haha). If anyone has the right numbers, please help us out and post here. Let's just use that number though, 188,000. So, if there is a 70% increase, wouldn't the population in 11 years, be around the 300,000 mark? That's crazy growth! Can Richmond even support that many people? Does it have the land to be able to support that type of growth. I'm a bit skeptical about those numbers, simply because a lot of Richmond's land is within the ALR, isn't it? (like the Garden City Lands).

Wow. If Richmond grows at that rate, though, that would be impressive. I know the Richmond downtown core is projected to have around 120,000 people by the time developments on No. 3 rd are just about done. Currently, there's about 42,000 people living in downtown Richmond. So, the city is projecting that their downtown population will about triple in a few years, after condo/apartment development(s).

I also have to add that the 70% increase in population, is that the elder population, or are you talking about the population of Richmond in its entirety? Cause, if it's Richmond in it's whole (70% increase), that would be an explosion of people moving into the city. that's massive.

[Stingray2004]

I guess it would have been better if I sourced the news release.

Anyway, the tidbit was contained within the Canada Line press release from yesterday. BTW, AFAIK, Office Dweller is correct in that I was also under the impression that Richmond is not a designated growth area within the LRSP(?).

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2009TRAN0002-000047.htm

[Locked In]

Growth of 70% in the next 11 years sounds far too high. The Draft version of Metro Vancouver's Growth Strategy, "Our Livable Region 2040", released in September 2008, pegs the 2008 population of Richmond and Delta combined at 285,000, and the projected population in 2021 at 339,000. By 2041, the population is expected to increase by 117,000 people (less than 50% over the next 30 years). The report is available on Metro Vancouver's website.

[Rusty Gull]

This doesn't surprise me at all.

Richmond has easy access to Vancouver, cheap (relatively) real estate, a relatively good quality of life (less crime/grunginess than most other suburbs), and it's immigrant-friendly, obviously.

The introduction of the Canada Line only enhances the above picture.

[Vancity]

Growth of 70% in the next 11 years sounds far too high. The Draft version of Metro Vancouver's Growth Strategy, "Our Livable Region 2040", released in September 2008, pegs the 2008 population of Richmond and Delta combined at 285,000, and the projected population in 2021 at 339,000. By 2041, the population is expected to increase by 117,000 people (less than 50% over the next 30 years). The report is available on Metro Vancouver's website.

I'm not convinced that Richmond can sustain that amount of growth (even though I'd love for Richmond to be a bustling city with a lot of people). Yes, it is relatively close to Vancouver, and immigrant-friendly city, but how in the world is it going to sustain approx 300,000 people by 2021? Does the city even have the infrastructure to deal with that kind of population? So in 11 years, the population is going to be above 300,000 people in the city. Unless Richmond builds up (which it already is doing a bit), I don't think the city can sustain that, and with the limited height restrictions, how is it going to densify?

[Locked In]

BTW, AFAIK, Office Dweller is correct in that I was also under the impression that Richmond is not a designated growth area within the LRSP(?).


I was also under that impression. The 1996 GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan omits Richmond in its list of municipalities in which growth is to be concentrated:

"The Strategic Plan calls for a larger share of residential growth to be accommodated in the Burrard Peninsula municipalities, the North East Sector, North Surrey and North Delta"

[officedweller]

Yes, that's right, but GVRD/Metro Vancouver doesn't have any means of enforcing a municipality's zoning. Essentially, it is without "teeth".
i.e. there have been a number of rezoning that have breached the LRSP - notably Surrey's approval of the Campbell Heights indutrial area and Richmond's approval of residential condos at Riverport.
The other factor is that the LRSP requires unanimous approval among all of the municipalities - and Richmond refused to sign on unless its designation was changed - so while it's not in a "growth concentration area" (those on bedrock), there is growth contemplated for Richmond (I think is in a designation of its own - a middle ground). Richmond also held out for the provision of a rapid transit line to Richmond.