Central Waterfront District | Waterfront Station - CRAB Park
 

A huge tip of the hat to jlousa for the document


The following are exerts from Translink's Waterfront Station Transportation Hub Conceptual Plan Request For Proposal.

The South British Columbia Coast Transportation Authority ("the SBCTA" or "TransLink") is seeking consultant services to develop a Waterfront Hub Transportation Concept Plan ("Transportation Concept Plan") for Waterfront Station, located on West Cordova Street at the gateway between the Core Business District (CBD) and Gastown. The Concept Plan will be used as a key input into the City of Vancouver's ("CoV") Central Waterfront Transportation Hub (the "Hub") Study. The intent of the Plan is to guide the development of a world class transportation facility that is highly functional, accessible to a variety modes and users and a destination in and of itself. It must keep pace with increasing transit ridership and reflect the importance of the station as a multimodal transit hub.

It is planned that the Hub be a showcase for the city and that it meet the highest international standard for transportation hubs for the next 50-100 years.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/127...udyareaiz3.jpg
Waterfront Station Transportation Hub Conceptual Plan - Page 56

As part of the CoV Hub Study, the City will be engaging an engineering consultant to carry out feasibility analysis and develop preliminary structural concepts and construction cost estimates for a number of elements of their Concept Plan, including: a viaduct road network north of Cordova Street and east of Howe Street; a new transit concourse north of the Waterfront Station building; two new development sites above the railway tracks south of the new Canada Place viaduct extension; and a new entrance to the Granville Square parkade from Cordova Street. The results of this work are expected in late April, 2008. TransLinkYs consultants will be required to review the results of this engineering work, and where necessary, incorporate findings into the Transportation Concept Plan.

The centrepiece of the Waterfront Hub area is Waterfront Station, a landmark heritage building originally built as the CPR railway station. Waterfront Station features limited retail and office space and is served by a number of key regional transportation lines (Expo Line SkyTrain, West Coast Express commuter rail, SeaBus passenger ferry, local and express bus service, future Canada Line and a potential streetcar). Overall, the space at Waterfront Station hub does not live up to its potential as a dynamic multimodal interchange. Integration between transportation modes and the physical and visual connections to the surrounding neighbourhood must be improved

Waterfront Station is the terminus and seventh busiest station of the SkyTrain networkand forms an integral part of the regional transit system servicing Metro Vancouver.


Current and potential future transportation services at Waterfront Station include:

SeaBus to Lonsdale Quay:
-3.2 km passenger ferry linking North Vancouver with downtown Vancouver.
-Two vessels, each carrying up to 400 passengers serve an average of 17,700 weekday passengers.
-Annual ridership in 2007 was 5.4 million boardings, a 4% increase over the previous year and projections suggest an additional 4% in 2008.
-A third SeaBus is to enter service in 2009, to address forecasted increased demand for SeaBus service by allowing service every 10 minutes in peaks, up fiom every 15 minutes today.
-North Shore bus service feeding the Seabus is also expected to improve significantly with frequencies increasing from 15 to 10 minutes when the third SeaBus enters service.

Expo & Millennium Line SkyTrain Terminus
-Both SkyTrain routes (Expo and Millennium) terminate at Waterfront Station.
-Trains every 108 seconds in peak periods.
-Weekday SkyTrain boardings at Waterfront are estimated at 15,600, with 10,400 boardings Saturdays and 7,000 Sundays.
-The AM peak hour sees 1,350 boardings and 2,000 alightings at this station.
-The PM peak hour sees 2,700 boardings and 1,825 alightings at this station.
-There is significant "reverse peak" travel at this station, generated by transfers to and from SeaBus and West Coast Express.

West Coast Express (WCE) Terminus
-Commuter rail service linking Mission, Port Haney, Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Port Moody with downtown Vancouver.
-Five trains operate only in the peak direction, weekdays only.
-Trains operate approximately every 30 minutes with passenger volumes of up to 1,300 per train arriving and departing Waterfront.
-Annual ridership in 2007 was 2.4 million boardings, a 4% increase over the previous year.
-Since opening in 1995, ridership has increased steadily from about 5,000 riders a day to well over 9,000, with an overall growth rate of 60 per cent.

Bus Terminus:
-It is intended that the Hub become more of a regional rapid transit centre serving multiple modes of rail, SeaBus, and regional higher order bus services as well as local services. Part of the study will be to determine the overall desire for services, the number of bus routes and type of route including potentially Bus Rapid Transit service along Hastings to Simon Fraser University as well as limited stop B-Line services and local trolley service.

Heliiet Port
-Helijet scheduled helicopter service operates to Victoria from a floating dock adjacent to the SeaBus terminal.


In addition to existing transportation services, the following services are planned or are potential future additions to the hub, which will need consideration as part of this study.

Canada Line Terminus
-The Canada Line rail rapid transit system to Richmond and the airport will open in late 2009, replacing the #98 B-Line that now starts on Cordova Street in front of Waterfront Station. The Canada Line will terminate below Granville Street, just south of Cordova Street, with one of the station entrances leading to the main hall of the CPR station to provide connections to other transit services at Waterfront Station. A second entrance at Granville and Hastings will serve much walk-in traffic tolfrom the CBD that now uses the #98 B-Line stop at Burrard Station, as well as some bus connections

Future: Downtown Streetcar
-The City of Vancouver has proposed a streetcar network for downtown Vancouver with a phase 1 line extending from Waterfront Station around False Creek to Granville Island. More information can be found at: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.calengs...treetcar/index.

Future: Passenger Ferry Services
-Private inter-regional passenger ferry services to Victoria and Nanaimo have operated in the past from the outside berth of the SeaBus terminal and should be provided for in the future. TransLink may also expand passenger ferry services within the region to Bowen Island, West Vancouver and potentially other destinations.

Future: Intercity Passenger Rail Services
-While not currently on the horizon, consideration shall be given to providing passenger and track capacity for future intercity passenger rail services (e.g., to Seattle and Portland) within the facility given its strategically central location and lack of alternatives.

Future: Transit Expansion
-The Province of British Columbia recently announced a plan to invest $11 billion in the regional transit network. This plan includes a major expansion of the rapid transit, rail and bus system, as well as significant upgrades to existing facilities. This investment will significantly increase transit ridership and thereby add considerable volume to existing transit facilities, including Waterfront Station.

Potential Future: Whitecaps Stadium
-The study should take into account the possible development of a 15-30,000 seat stadium within the Central Waterfront Port Lands, currently under discussion between the Whitecaps and the Vancouver Port Authority.


Options should acknowledge the diverse mix of users (commuters, workers, tourists, cyclists, residents, etc.) of the station hub and surrounding area and propose ways to enhance its function, vitality, and public image and visibility both as a transportation hub and a destination. Specifically, options should: Identify passenger and facility improvements that will enhance access, connectivity between modes, comfort, safety and wayfinding throughout station area;

-Address multi-modal transportation integration and expansion (e.g., bus, train, SkyTrain, SeaBus, streetcar, passenger ferry, cycling, walking, etc.);
-Identify preferred locations for transit services within the facility (.e.g., specific locations on street or within a designated terminal area).
-Identify special zones (e.g., transit priority, ticket purchasing areas, fare paid zones, potential fare gatelticket barrier cordons), indicating required capacity and widths, passenger amenities, wayfinding and information improvements within the station and the immediate Hub area.
-Optimize all at-grade, above grade, vertical and horizontal connections to and within the station hub, including Canada Line and bus transfer zones, and to the surrounding pedestrian and cycling network.
-Maximize the legibility of vertical and horizontal wayfinding and orientation opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists to all modes.
-Identify vertical connections between the modes, key destinations and street grade, and any other facilities (e.g., ramps) required to service bicycles and people with limited mobility.
-Incorporate principles of safety and security in ways that enhances the Station as a public space, both day and night and throughout the year.
-Propose scenarios for expanding people conveyance systems such as locations of elevators, stairs, escalators, walkway widths, etc.
-Improve cycling access and wayfinding from the surrounding proposed street system.
-Explore options for providing cycling storage at the station.
-Assess and identify any retail opportunities within the station, including cycling facilities.
-Identify ways to appropriately integrate the station with the neighbourhood and to create a better connection with the waterfront.
-Propose innovative ways of expanding the existing building / space while respecting the heritage and character of the CPR station building.

omg o_O....this is basically what i sent to Translink like a year ago. my dream realized?

it looks like the new Translink deserved the pay raise they gave themselves.

Wow. I want.

I always thought that the backwall of the Waterfront Station building should be knocked down so that a concourse, with a huge glass roof, could be built. From the concourse, you will be able to go down to the West Coast Express commuter rail platforms via escalators to the platform level. Fare gates would be installed at each WCE escalator entrance. Same goes with the SeaBus, with another escalator/stairs going down to a corridor to the SeaBus terminal. At the glass roofed concourse, there would be shops, bistros, and restaurants. There would also be transit customer service booths located throughout the station. Overhead, there would be a huge LCD screen and there would also be constant automatic announcements of train and SeaBus arrivals.

Access to the SkyTrain platform would also be improved with the addition of escalators/stairs on the platform to the Waterfront Station building.

This would've been similar to Pennsylvania Station in New York:
http://words.grubbykid.com/images/20...station_03.jpg

http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/...re0017_01x.jpg

http://gothamist.com/attachments/Jen...oynstation.jpg

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12082007/photos/PO019.jpg

http://www.110livingston.net/wp-cont...staton_big.jpg

http://www.trainweb.org/rshs/nycity_new_trainview.jpg

Thanks!

I think Street B should be moved to the north to allow for a wider concourse (or at least provide at-grade (undergound) space for future tracks parallel to the WCE tracks).
Or better yet - The concourse should be oriented north-south in more typical fashion with stairs and escalators descending to the tracks on each side - this could be accomplished by making the concourse more of a square shape with east and west sides providing flanking retail and services and maybe one or two towers above the flanks.

The Granville Extension is a good idea - apparently the City had been considering it as it was mentioned in a previous Granville Street-end consultant's study funding request (i.e. demolition of the Granville Square parkade, passage through it, or at the level of the plaza (elevated)) - no sign of the consultant's study report.

Here's my suggested revision to the concept (this would allow for 2 more platforms parallel to and north of the WCE platform):

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/6...picturear0.png

The concourse can also be moved west to open up on one side onto Granville Street sort of like Southern Cross Station in Melbourne - it depnds on whether you want to create a new facade/image or retain the CP Station as the main facade:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ne-morning.jpg
Photo: Marcus Wong (Wikipedia)

A lofty goal to be the showcase for the city and that it meet the highest international standard for transportation hubs for the next 50-100 years. For that to happen, the WCE would need to run a lot more frequently, the Canada line would have to be properly integratied with the Expo Line, the Streetcar has to break ground... oh and just for the heck of it, the Expo line needs to be extended out to Gastown (at least) so that there's another choice in directions to take.

I too visioned something like this (not as big) and sent it to TransLink a few times.

Anyway I did a quick simple map in the area to include some of the features I hope to see:
http://members.shaw.ca/adrian_leung/...rfront Hub.png

Add on that the Canada Line's Waterfront Station platform would have to be extended, and that could be possible if we sacrificed the tail track for an extended platform, since the corridor to the CP building is along the tail track. I just don't see how a 50-metre platform would work for the transit hub, for 50-100 years. And this means the entire Canada Line would need a major rehaul.

More importantly, the WCE needs to be improved....the service needs double-tracking, and it needs to be frequent all-day service. Perhaps they could make a second line through Surrey via the Grandview Cut. I thought it was interesting that they included inter-city passenger services to Seattle and Portland.

BTW, nice maps guys. And Deasine, I assume the big red square includes both the CP building and transit plaza.....it's also bloody huge compared to what Translink is proposing. And note that the Canada Line Waterfront Station's street entrance has been moved to the southwest corner of Granville and Hastings in front of the Washington Building...it is no longer integrated with Sinclair Centre.

So within a few months we should see some detailed plans and possibly renderings? How awesome would it be if one of those newly created development parcels became home of Vancouver's next tallest. I could envision a 55 fl mixed use building clocking in at 750ft with 25flrs of condos on top of a 30 story commercial base. Hopefully some developer can envision that as well.

I'm not so sure we'll see condos on top of any office tower going in there, especially with the Whitecaps stadium being next doors. ;)

Also expect the seawall to finally connect with crab park and then to the Carrall St Greenway.

I don't think condos are suitable for this part of the CBD (nevermind that residential shouldn't even be in the CBD), it should be completely office. And I agree, hopefully this gives us an opportunity to put a supertall (750-800 feet; 55-65 stories), completely office with retail at the bottom. Our own Two International Finance Tower:
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/21234/hkskyline.jpg

Don't expect anything taller then the pacific press building, otherwise you'll be let down.

^ which building is that?

^I'm guessing Granville Square (home of the Vancouver Sun/Province - 'Pacific Press')

I don't see why they couldn't do something a bit taller (like 160m at least?). I mean those development sites look sizable enough for something taller. A pair of tall twins would be pretty cool.

^ disappointing in size....we really do lack the balls to do anything great in this city.

Are you kidding me? Do something great in this city? We are the envy of almost every city of our class. While they are busy trying to mimic us, we have those here that still rather see some supertalls.
This is yet another great project that will make the city even more livable, that is what it is all about.
*broken record* There is no need for a supertall in Vancouver *end broken record*

I've updated the photoshop I did last year, hopefully we'll get something like this.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p...aterfront2.jpg

That looks like it would completely cover the tracks with a Park... looks expensive.

Go Falcon Go!

Washington took over the United Kingdom [Building]???

If a tall building does go in, I'd rather see it set back from the water close to the CP Station rather than closer to the Seabus. That would provide some height variation.

The problem with the park ove rthe tracks concept is that the escarpment (on whihc the Canada Place Way viaduct relies for elevation separation over Waterfont Road, practically disappears by Abbott Street, so any deck over the tracks would be substantially higher than the nearby roadways. A permanent deck may prove to be a big visual barrier (moreso than parked trains which at least move every so often.

^ Revenge for losing the War of 1812.

Too much credit.

not everything is about height:rolleyes: . there is more to a city than having tall buildings, concentrate your height in one area and sacrifice the life of another area in return.

^I'm not all about height. The transit hub alone will be a much better addition to the city than any tall tower could be, but with a couple of taller Vancouver buildings (ie not even close to 'tall' by international standards) we would have a bit of something to make everybody happy (on this forum anyways). And on the plus side, taller towers in that location would have a pretty limited impact in terms of shadowing since they would be on the far north side of downtown. Wouldn't be too ideal if the stadium was built over the seabus terminal though. And I don't want tall just for the sake of tall - Vancouver is lacking in iconic, internationally recognizable landmarks. A site like that could provide an opportunity to do something really special. You might say who needs recognizable landmarks, but such an icon really helps in terms of international branding, marketing, and most importantly adding to the identity of a city. I think most people here would agree that NYC just wouldn't be the same without the Empire State Building, or Paris without the Eiffel Tower, or even Toronto without the CN Tower.

I don't really see why some people have such an issue with adding a taller building or two to Vancouver. I agree that the city is great, tall buildings or not, but I don't see the harm of adding a few architectural landmarks. Aside from extra shadowing, a tall tower can be just as great an asset as any other development if done right - ie respecting the street-level pedestrian environment by adding to it rather than taking away from it, adding a significant city amenity, drawing more pedestrian activity to an area through increased employment/housing density, providing a useful reference point in the city (particularly for tourists), and of course adding to the architectural landscape and the city's collective identity/sense of place.

Just my opinion though. :shrug:

Whether tall towers would 'fit' well and create a balanced skyline there is another question though.

^ i couldn't agree more.

Some may say our city looks great because of its natural beauty, which has influenced our built form quite a bit. But natural beauty and geography was a gift to us from nature, we didn't create it and we sure as hell don't deserve it, and it's all merely a coincidence (with a lot of luck involved) that we decided to plot a city here. My point is, how cool would it be to have both natural beauty and man-made architectural wonders?

Not to mention....I find that tall and architecturally-unique buildings in a city represents the power, wealth, determination, strength, and progress of a city and its people.

Yup. But we must also strike a balance. We don't want a tower to be TOO tall, looking odd in the skyline.

So many billions of dollars in plans floating around now. Even if they don't get constructed immediately, it's nice to see there is some thought towards the future.

Love to see something special done with the concourse, especially the roof. Also believe double tracking the WCE line should be a priority if they want to continue taking on more users. They said there are 9000 people per day using it? What's the capacity now?

As for really tall buildings within the hub... Not sure if I'd want to see something that close to the waterfront.

I know this is heresy around these parts, but if you ask me the economic considerations here are a lot more important than "How does this affect the symmetry of our skyline?"

The skyline is something that most people hardly ever see except in pictures, and on top of that it's completely subjective. Some people would think that the tall buildings accent our skyline, some people would hate them, and the majority of Vancouverites wouldn't care at all.

I'll take 20 extra floors of downtown office space over a relatively flat skyline any day.

Well we certainly wouldn't want a CN Tower in Vancouver that is 4x the height of everything else, I'm thinking along the lines of a 750-800 footer.

I believe each train has a capacity of 1,300 passengers? And they run five trains in the morning and five trains at night. So that's 13,000 available spaces, and 9,000+ are filled each day.

You dont have to have a tall building or a set of tall buildings to create an iconic city, you just need to have well-designed buildings in the appropriate places, regardless of height. think the lourve, sydney opera house, arc de triumph, chance des liseis, etc.

Props to SFU Vancouver and JLousa for this document. Very good stuff.

A couple comments:

- Intercity Passenger Rail Services is cited for Seattle/Vancouver. Why would Waterfront Station be vying for this, when we have a perfectly suitable train station already servicing Amtrak?

- there's also mention of future Seabus/ferry services (to West Vancouver, Bowen Island). Wasn't this killed off by TransLink already?

I like the look of that with the stadium further west and closer to the transport hub.

While Pacific Central station is certainly a nice building, Amtrak would do well to move operations to Waterfront because
a) Short haul service and potential for high speed means (relative to VIA operations) less tourists and therefore more traffic that will rely on transit system.
b) convenient location for Cruise ship passengers to transfer from and to.
c) the location means that there is potential for the Canada customs office that services the cruise ship passengers to also service the train passengers, thus cutting federal costs and allowing more flexibility in placing people.

and how would they get trains from Seattle to Waterfront Station?

I'll bet the main reason for having a tower on the site would be to help pay for the cost of the transportation hub.
I think Phesto mentioned that Cadillac Fairview has right to the air space above the tracks behind the CP Station (as well as the CP Station itself) - even though the amenity may not benefit solely the City of Vancouver (i.e. it would benefit Translink) the City may be instrumental in getting perks from Cadillac Fairview.

Intercity could also mean Rocky Mountaineer. They operate out of their own station now (behind Home Depot) and if those yards are eventually developed, they may favour Watefront.

The route would be pretty much the same as now, just cutting over to the waterfront via that Venables crossing.

As for express boat services - they are thinking very, very long term for capacity. Also, the hydrofoil to Nanaimo will probably come back sooner rather than leter.

I wish they had this planned for 2010. I ride the seabus every day and it's an embarrassing looking terminal on the south end (north is not much better). So many tourists take it and love the seabus itself but the rest is completely underwhelming.

My question is where would the seabuses dock while this is being built?

I fully agree. Unfortunately Vancouver is still lacking in these shorter sorts of iconic facilities as well.

However, I don't see the harm in taller buildings. Perhaps those of you who are not such fans of them can enlighten me as to what you dislike about them. I realize they aren't necessary to make a great city (as you've said), but what's the harm in having them?

As far as I can see they provide the same opportunity to make iconic landmarks as the shorter ones you mentioned yet can have much more of a visual impact as they can be seen from afar, providing a visual reference point as well as solidifying their position in the collective identity of the city as they can be seen more often and by more people at any given time. In this sense they have the potential to be more iconic because they are more likely to be regularly seen than those buildings potentially buried behind walls of condos and as they say, "out of sight, out of mind".

I think this sort of reasoning may explain why out of the landmarks you mentioned, the Sydney Opera House is by far the most visually iconic - it is in a great open spot on the harbour with largely unobstructed sight lines. So basically every postcard-perfect shot of Sydney can include it (and the Harbour Bridge of course). The same can't necessarily be said of the Paris landmarks you mentioned. The Eiffel Tower however is little more than an observation deck, not as great a cultural facility as the Louvre, and is not even as old as the Louvre, yet it is the icon of Paris. Why? Because it is architecturally significant and is one of the most visually conspicuous structures in the city.

For Vancouver I'm not talking ridiculous heights here, merely heights that are nothing more than standard in other cities (and even shorter than standard in some cities).

Anywho, I respect your view cc85, but I'm just curious what it is some people have against taller buildings in our downtown that is already a forest of highrises.

Well not that I'm expecting or wanting anything 750-800 ft on the waterfront, I was hoping for something along the lines of 160-175m. I think this would be a reasonable height for this area, considering its neighbours shaw and pacific rim, and the height of the buildings behind it. This height allows for the architect to have enough of a pallet to play with in terms of a visually pleasing dedign, while still remaining economically viable and does not look out of place,

Regarding the construction of something as tall as 800+ feet, I think it will happen some time in our lifetimes (next 50 years or so), but not anytime soon, there just isn't the political will or economic necessity. What I think a prudent move would be, is to allow a developer(s) to build moderately sized buildings in the central/eastern CBD, with phasable designs, so that when demand and the public decide they are necessary down the road, central locations for large office towers will still be available. As it stands now there are a great deal of low and mid sized aging office sites in the NE, some of these could be easily demoed and built up to current height limits or current demand limits, but they could be ready for the eventuality of more commercial density needed in the DT core.

This is what I am talking about regarding the 'NE CBD'
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...tcav/NECBD.jpg

Here is a pic showing the relative lack of density compared to the NW CBD
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...fficestudy.jpg

The BC Hydro Building is supposed to be the model for towers on that side of downtown - hasn't taken off though - maybe because of difficulties in consolidating parcels. There are also several social housing complexes and SROs in that area that would hamper consolidation.
If Trilea had been allowed to move ahead with its Woodward's based mall north of The Bay in the early 1990s, I think the spread of office space to the east would have happened faster than it is. Instead, those parcels (which had been consolidated except for the then CIBC Building) were sold off piecemeal (including The Hudson, St. Regis, Gotham, BCIT, etc. sites) where the smaller scale use in some ways acts as a partition from the rest of the CBD. I think the Bay Parkade site will be the turning point - but if it has a lot of residential, it could also act as a divding line.

Fixed it with Metric Measurements
 

:D

Thanks for the metric, my mind automatically skips over anything in feet these days...

Off-topic, but towers on the waterfront down in Perth:

http://www.perthwaterfront.com.au/

Is it just me or is one of the buildings look slanted... the Leaning Tower of Perth? :haha:

Gotta love that sexy Australian accent....beautiful development btw.

tall buildings create a lack of association between people on the street and the buildings that surround them, they feel intimidated, they dont feel connected to them. you block views (you can try all you want with the view cones, but it doesnt work), you limit sun light (forget the shadow modeling), finally, you destroy another neighbourhoods attempt at achieving a level of success, by concentrating value, actually absurd value in one area of tall buildings, which directly causes a loss of value in other areas creating undesirable urban form.

Those aspects aren't necessarily retsricted to tall buildings or caused by height.
Lowrises with massive blank walls can dissociate people from the street - i.e Main Post Office, back of the Law Courts.
Short buildings can block views too - it depends on siting. The CP Station blocks the water view north on Seymour Street.
Lowrises and midrises can create shadows too - I recall lots of streets in London and Paris being in shade due to construction right to the sidewalk.
As for "concentrating value", it would depend on your perspective - evenly distributing office space and residential space in lowrise buildings could produce more intense development across a wider area, destroying some of the "valuable" green aspects currently enjoyed by some areas. (i.e. people may want certain uses kept away from them.)

Tall buildings are pretty much inevitable for downtown areas, and we already have plenty of them. If I feel "disconnected" from Shangri-La, I'm going to feel just as "disconnected" from, say, the TD Tower. It's not like 130m is somehow more psychologically manageable than 200m.

You block a couple people's views in exchange for providing living and working space for tens of thousands. Sunlight is a valid point, but I'll take a more vibrant downtown over slightly reduced sunlight any day. Besides, almost everywhere downtown is a kilometre or less from the waterfront.


Quick, we have to tell New York/Tokyo/Osaka this before they develop undesirable urban form and nobody wants to live there!

lol

sorry, i thought good urban design was automatically factored in, i didnt address it. **** of course a blank wall is going to kill urban behaviour.

when i talk about height, im not condoning 20 story buildings, let alone 40 stories, height in OUR CDB is simply the result of land economics, and people maximizing their yield at the expense of outlying areas. go to any european city, see the skyscrapers? no, i dont:slob: i guess they have more head offices there, thats why they dont have high rises, some inverted correlation. hmm, land is more affordable, howd that happen?:sly:

spreading out development is finicky, im not talking about 0.5 far, or even 1, im talking about 70 upa/ 2.5 far; an amazing amount of green space would be left over if we did that.

i'd love to be farther away from the sea planes taking off, or the lafarge plant, or the container ships unloading, but that small 1/4 acre park down there in them streets is only enough grass for the dogs in one building to kill, oh and i forgot about the fact that the brochures never tell you about the reverberating sounds coming from all those lovely activities.

eventually you reach a point where the additional height does not provide any additional benefits for the area, simply reducing views, sunlight, as in bye bye north shore mtns, im sure if we spread that density over south slope, wed have even better views had we had this hindsight.