Originally Posted by Vin (Post 8535706)

Let's hope for some progressive Squamish Nation leaders to speed up this development. I wouldn't consider Kitsilano "tony" in its current state. Expensive place but rather run-down or mediocre at best, as compared to the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12 (Post 8535729)

Your comment was appropriate until you threw that hyperbole in.

I hope this development turns out as planned, though a lot of these first nations/federal government plans are slower than traditional local development.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12 (Post 8535729)

Your comment was appropriate until you threw that hyperbole in.

I hope this development turns out as planned, though a lot of these first nations/federal government plans are slower than traditional local development.

Originally Posted by whatnext (Post 8535744)

If I'm reading it correctly, the Feds have no stake or say in this, unlike Jericho or the Heather lands. The Squamish are doing it on their own.

Originally Posted by Vin (Post 8535983)

I love it when Nimbys have no say in something like this. Let's hope for something more creative in the future development of this area. :haha:

Originally Posted by officedweller (Post 8536092)

Here's the old rendering from 2010 showing the site layout:

https://i0.wp.com/www.kitsilano.ca/w...pg?w=620&ssl=1
https://www.kitsilano.ca/2010/05/22/...urrard-bridge/

Originally Posted by whatnext (Post 8536163)

Given the proximity to Concord's holding at the Molson site, what are the chances they are the development partner?

Originally Posted by SpongeG (Post 8536192)

it's more granville island than kitsilano.

So without city restrictions are they still under the strict height limits?

Originally Posted by jlousa (Post 8536118)

Citizens not having a say in things will not lead to anything better, As much as we complain about nimbies they ultimately lead to a better city. All the best cities to live in have strong citizen voices. Sure it slows things down and adds costs, but the alternatively is evern worse.

Originally Posted by SpongeG (Post 8536192)

it's more granville island than kitsilano.

So without city restrictions are they still under the strict height limits?

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend (Post 8536261)

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/04...elopment-plan/

As one might expect, that last quote is making the rounds on social media.

Originally Posted by jlousa (Post 8536118)

Citizens not having a say in things will not lead to anything better, As much as we complain about nimbies they ultimately lead to a better city. All the best cities to live in have strong citizen voices. Sure it slows things down and adds costs, but the alternatively is evern worse.

Originally Posted by logan5 (Post 8536407)

There's a pretty wide buffer between this development and Kits, and in fact, this development is happening in Fairview, an entirely different neighbourhood. No "consultation" required.

I put consultation in quotation marks because consultation is code for "you're going to do everything our way". I hope they are politely asked to talk to the hand.

Originally Posted by a very long weekend (Post 8536643)

While it would be pretty sweet if the Squamish did a smaller version of the Walled City of Kowloon, they have to find the right balance to maximize the return. 3,000 units could be right, but one hopes they'll push it up further. From a public policy perspective (if maybe not a financial one), 8,000-10,000 people living in that area, with rich amenities and available commercial space, that would be another pole in Vancouver and would have great knock-on effects. Namely, such a development could well force a vital re-think of the current 1990s era planning approach that dominates the region, break the boomers' vice-grip on maintaining the artificial land shortage, with the result of restoring the pre-planning 'build everywhere' ethos so that rents can get back to tracking incomes. With boomers starting to die off, dam could break if there's a project to rally round, who knows?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8536645)

Not entirely disagreeing, but somehow I don't think that 5-7k more drivers living at the foot of Burrard Bridge is a good idea.

Originally Posted by a very long weekend (Post 8536643)

While it would be pretty sweet if the Squamish did a smaller version of the Walled City of Kowloon, they have to find the right balance to maximize the return. 3,000 units could be right, but one hopes they'll push it up further. From a public policy perspective (if maybe not a financial one), 8,000-10,000 people living in that area, with rich amenities and available commercial space, that would be another pole in Vancouver and would have great knock-on effects. Namely, such a development could well force a vital re-think of the current 1990s era planning approach that dominates the region, break the boomers' vice-grip on maintaining the artificial land shortage, with the result of restoring the pre-planning 'build everywhere' ethos so that rents can get back to tracking incomes. With boomers starting to die off, dam could break if there's a project to rally round, who knows?

Originally Posted by jlousa (Post 8537032)

I don't think that will be the case, I think they will be treating this as an income stream and will be at market rates bringing in as much funds as possible. How they distribute those funds back to it's members I have no clue. I also expect that they will be teaming with a developer and would be surprised if they go it alone.

Originally Posted by jlousa (Post 8537032)

I don't think that will be the case, I think they will be treating this as an income stream and will be at market rates bringing in as much funds as possible. How they distribute those funds back to it's members I have no clue. I also expect that they will be teaming with a developer and would be surprised if they go it alone.

Originally Posted by the_prof (Post 8536891)

Being a driver is a decision, not something one is born as

Originally Posted by djh (Post 8537053)

...which tangentially becomes political for the tribal leaders. If the development is managed to make money for the Squamish Nation but there are many homeless, struggling and unsupported tribe members around the city, it looks really bad for the Nation. Critics will complain that the Nation is going for "greed" as opposed to providing social housing or helping its members get themselves on the right track.

A tricky rock-and-hard-place to be wedged in.

Originally Posted by csbvan (Post 8536429)

Yes, exactly. Obviously there are some extreme NIMBYs who want nothing to change, but they don't generally get their way (except in the District of North Van). More often it's people who have legitimate concerns, and sometimes the City makes a developer change a proposal based on those concerns. It's a compromise, often a reasonable one.

Anyways, it's not like Vancouver has particularly strong community opposition to projects compared to many other cities in North America. Clearly the City of Vancouver hasn't been hindered from densifying due to citizen opposition. It's more densely populated than the City of Amsterdam or Copenhagen, let alone other Canadian cities...

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8536645)

Not entirely disagreeing, but somehow I don't think that 5-7k more drivers living at the foot of Burrard Bridge is a good idea.

Originally Posted by jlousa (Post 8537032)

I don't think that will be the case, I think they will be treating this as an income stream and will be at market rates bringing in as much funds as possible. How they distribute those funds back to it's members I have no clue. I also expect that they will be teaming with a developer and would be surprised if they go it alone.

Originally Posted by whatnext (Post 8535672)

I searched and couldn't find a thread on this. I remmeber it was discussed here somewhere a long time ago, but it looks like the Squamish are finally getting ready to move forward. Great to see this will likely be rental, a smart decision that will ensure long-term, stable cash flow for them.

The Squamish Nation plans a massive housing project encompassing as many as 3,000 apartments on prime land next to a Vancouver city park, marking the first large-scale urban development by an Indigenous group in Canada.

The ambitious project next to the Burrard Bridge and Vanier Park on the False Creek waterfront in central Vancouver would occupy the last of their reserve land in the city. It is likely to spark controversy in the tony Kitsilano neighbourhood nearby, where in recent weeks residents have been protesting the development of a couple of low-rise apartment buildings.

Development of so many apartments, which the Squamish are considering restricting to all rental, could help Vancouver alleviate its housing crisis, but the city does not have jurisdiction over the Squamish land.

As a result, the city will have little legal authority over the project, unlike the relationship the city will have with two other Indigenous-led megaprojects in a more long-term roll out. The Jericho lands in the west and Heather lands in central Vancouver are being developed jointly by the federal government and a consortium of the three local First Nations...

....Squamish leaders are favouring the idea of building all rental apartments in the project, he said. That’s not decided, though. The development, which could potentially be almost the same size as the Little Mountain housing site in central Vancouver, would also include commercial spaces, public squares and arts spaces, he said.

Khelselim said the council doesn’t want to name the developer partner yet, but that the company was chosen from five proposals after the nation asked 16 local builders to apply.

He did confirm that the Aquilinis, the powerhouse local family-run developers who have developed strong relationships and built projects for both the Tsleil-waututh and Tsawwassen bands, are not the partners.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...velopment-for/

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8535861)

Great news. That part of the seawall's been about as useful as kosher bacon.

I wonder if this'll affect the streetcar plan?

Originally Posted by logan5 (Post 8536407)

There's a pretty wide buffer between this development and Kits, and in fact, this development is happening in Fairview, an entirely different neighbourhood. No "consultation" required.

I put consultation in quotation marks because consultation is code for "you're going to do everything our way". I hope they are politely asked to talk to the hand.

Originally Posted by csbvan (Post 8536545)

Vancouver's large-scale density has generally taken place on low-hanging fruit, politically easy greyfield and brownfield sites, which is pretty standard. But it has led North America in densifying single-family neighbourhoods. It is easily the North American leader in accessory dwelling units and laneway housing. Because of that, Vancouver has more duplex households, by Statscan definitions, than single-family homes.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8536645)

Not entirely disagreeing, but somehow I don't think that 5-7k more drivers living at the foot of Burrard Bridge is a good idea.

Originally Posted by Changing City (Post 8537306)

Frances Bula is reporting that the development partner is Westbank. Khelsilem (an elected councillor with Squamish Nation Council) says that the City's Director of Transportation has already suggested that the streetcar might service the location.

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8537236)

Is there a space reserved for streetcar in the plans? Just 2 rails wide (about as much as an average residential street) is enough. The 2010 proposal's street bordering the Molson's site could be converted into a future streetcar spur IF the main/parking entrance was located on Pennyfarthing Dr. instead of the new road.


Honestly, that's partially why I'm against this plan. If it was possible, it would be better for the FN to get partial management/ownership of Vanier Park (you know, the original Reserve location), but :P

This (along with the Fir St. sale) basically kills any chance of the streetcar mainline making a detour to Kits. There's simply not enough space.

The Streetcar would have to go under the Granville Bridge/loops, using a ironically more direct route into the South False Creek rail spur.


I still wish the proposal had space reserved for a streetcar, though. A direct stop into these lands would be pretty useful for getting into Vanier Park, would provide transit for the residents, and could be extended onto Cornwall Ave.


:tup:



Source? Most of the duplex development is in the suburbs, not Vancouver City proper.



This lot is so tight and long, I don't even think getting big is possible. You'd have to fill in the center courtyard site in the 2010 plan.

I think overall the site can fit 3 towers. 2 on the centre courtyard, 1 on the other side, and maybe one straddling the streetcar where the Burrard Trestle bridge used to start.

But even then, I think 10,000 people is very precedent-setting, dense, and possibly a bit too ambitious considering the geometrical limitations of the site. It's denser than a lot of Downtown, that's for sure. If it gets there without turning into the Kolwoon Walled City, I'd support it.



On a side note, is anything going to happen to the Squamish-owned site on the foot of the other bridge (Lions Gate)?:


>snip<
Hopefully more industrial land? (especially considering how isolated that site is).

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8537236)

Source? Most of the duplex development is in the suburbs, not Vancouver City proper.

Originally Posted by Changing City (Post 8537306)

Frances Bula is reporting that the development partner is Westbank. Khelsilem (an elected councillor with Squamish Nation Council) says that the City's Director of Transportation has already suggested that the streetcar might service the location.

Originally Posted by SpongeG (Post 8537419)

CTV news at noon reported that the project has started/is underway now

Originally Posted by Vin (Post 8537161)

Many who choose to live so close to the downtown area would not mind forsaking their cars. Plenty of public transit routes and car share vehicles around. It is also a pleasure to walk across the beautiful Burrard Bridge to get to work. Fearing density around the bridge is highly unfounded.

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8537236)

Honestly, that's partially why I'm against this plan. If it was possible, it would be better for the FN to get partial management/ownership of Vanier Park (you know, the original Reserve location), but :P

This (along with the Fir St. sale) basically kills any chance of the streetcar mainline making a detour to Kits. There's simply not enough space.

The Streetcar would have to go under the Granville Bridge/loops, using a ironically more direct route into the South False Creek rail spur.

I still wish the proposal had space reserved for a streetcar, though. A direct stop into these lands would be pretty useful for getting into Vanier Park, would provide transit for the residents, and could be extended onto Cornwall Ave.

---

This lot is so tight and long, I don't even think getting big is possible. You'd have to fill in the center courtyard site in the 2010 plan.

I think overall the site can fit 3 towers. 2 on the centre courtyard, 1 on the other side, and maybe one straddling the streetcar where the Burrard Trestle bridge used to start.

But even then, I think 10,000 people is very precedent-setting, dense, and possibly a bit too ambitious considering the geometrical limitations of the site. It's denser than a lot of Downtown, that's for sure. If it gets there without turning into the Kolwoon Walled City, I'd support it.

Originally Posted by jsbertram (Post 8537408)

if the proposed arbutus streetcar line runs under burrard running north from the former cpr row along 6th ave, it can also make use of the designed and planned-for (but never built) streetcar line rail space under the burrard bridge. Crossing over false creek, the line can continue north under burrard to a terminal at the convention center.

having a station at cornwall (one of many along burrard) will serve this redevelopment and the molsons redevelopment, as well as the other existing communities either side of burrard

Originally Posted by Changing City (Post 8537306)

Frances Bula is reporting that the development partner is Westbank. Khelsilem (an elected councillor with Squamish Nation Council) says that the City's Director of Transportation has already suggested that the streetcar might service the location.

Originally Posted by jsbertram (Post 8537408)

if the proposed arbutus streetcar line runs under burrard running north from the former cpr row along 6th ave, it can also make use of the designed and planned-for (but never built) streetcar line rail space under the burrard bridge. Crossing over false creek, the line can continue north under burrard to a terminal at the convention center.

having a station at cornwall (one of many along burrard) will serve this redevelopment and the molsons redevelopment, as well as the other existing communities either side of burrard

Originally Posted by csbvan (Post 8537481)

The Census.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...Text=vancouver

It's because homes with suites are classified, rightfully, as a duplex, as they consist of two attached dwellings.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8537732)

Warren, quit hacking Vin's account!

The 2 and 84 aren't always reliable and sometimes crowded - thousands of new residents are going to compound on that; ditto the 44, which also has the disadvantage of being a peak-hour bus that stops after the evening rush; the 50 is mostly for tourists.
As Vin's said often, our high amount of rain and infrequent sunlight often lowers walkability. We all know he'd prefer half a dozen 60+ towers, yes, but even so, let's be practical here.



Nothing's a done deal yet; even if there's no room to keep the ROW (maybe they could collab with Concord developing Molson next door?), running the streetcar along Pennyfarthing should work out fine... and yes, I know I usually hate mixed-traffic, but SFC is mostly calm, and if done right should stay calm. Either way, it gets them under Burrard and into Vanier and Kits Beach, which is basically the objective of using that spur. Any connection further out to Kitsilano or UBC is kind of icing on the cake.

Agreed. I think the 2010 density (maybe with a few extra floors on the shorter ones) is a good middle ground.


(groan) Not this again.....

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8538490)

Eh, most of Fairview is presumably (hopefully) going to be densified to actually being part of Downtown. 10,000 people (6,000 units? or double the 2010 proposal) is pretty much downtown. And as people have already mentioned, all the more incentive to actually build the streetcar/brt. (they can run articulated trolleys in the meanwhile.)...

...The 2010 density was 3,000 units, or ~5,000 people assuming a ratio of 1.7 people per unit.

10,000 people is about 5800-6000 units by that estimate, or double the 2010 density. Which is a lot, especially on such a narrow site.

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8538490)

The issue with Pennyfarthing is that I want that icing on the cake. :haha:

----

Why?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8537732)

Warren, quit hacking Vin's account!

The 2 and 84 aren't always reliable and sometimes crowded - thousands of new residents are going to compound on that; ditto the 44, which also has the disadvantage of being a peak-hour bus that stops after the evening rush; the 50 is mostly for tourists.
As Vin's said often, our high amount of rain and infrequent sunlight often lowers walkability. We all know he'd prefer half a dozen 60+ towers, yes, but even so, let's be practical here.

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8538490)

Please don't let this be true. I don't want the rental units to be dropped to luxury condos. :(

Originally Posted by WarrenC12 (Post 8538515)

What makes walking unpleasant is actually traffic. I purposefully go out of the way to walk down a quiet street to avoid it.

And really, if you can't be out in the rain, find another place to live... Sometimes I look outside and take the car instead, but only when it's really pouring/windy/etc.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8537732)

Warren, quit hacking Vin's account!

The 2 and 84 aren't always reliable and sometimes crowded - thousands of new residents are going to compound on that; ditto the 44, which also has the disadvantage of being a peak-hour bus that stops after the evening rush; the 50 is mostly for tourists.
As Vin's said often, our high amount of rain and infrequent sunlight often lowers walkability. We all know he'd prefer half a dozen 60+ towers, yes, but even so, let's be practical here.



Nothing's a done deal yet; even if there's no room to keep the ROW (maybe they could collab with Concord developing Molson next door?), running the streetcar along Pennyfarthing should work out fine... and yes, I know I usually hate mixed-traffic, but SFC is mostly calm, and if done right should stay calm. Either way, it gets them under Burrard and into Vanier and Kits Beach, which is basically the objective of using that spur. Any connection further out to Kitsilano or UBC is kind of icing on the cake.

Agreed. I think the 2010 density (maybe with a few extra floors on the shorter ones) is a good middle ground.



(groan) Not this again.....

Originally Posted by Vin (Post 8540153)

Build it, and you will see an increase in 2 and 22, plus even a new line going up and down Burrard street. When's the last time Vancouver has had a new non-express bus line? It's about time.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8541717)

Indeed. Then they could develop the whole thing as one Olympic Village-sized neighbourhood.