Suburban Updates - All Other Metro Vancouver Municipalities

[nickinacan]

I'm sure most of the developments will be on hold for the rest of 2009. We won't see anything happen until later on in the year when the markets start to plateau. All the Gateway Project has to do is lure a big company from Downtown with low lease rates... but I'm sure that will be a tough sell right now.

[officedweller]

Thanks

[SpongeG]

i don't know what its called but a new office is going up on lougheed near global TV - its been on a board for years

walls are up suddenly

not more than one level but a big empty lot no more

[officedweller]

From the Record:

'Monstrosity' under the gun
City wants to chip away at old downtown parkade

Theresa McManus, The Record
Published: Wednesday, January 28, 2009


End of an era? The Fourth Street entrance to the east side of the parkade, which was built in 1963. The city is considering options for the parkade's future, including whether the structure should be demolished.
File photo/THE RECORD




The City of New Westminster will explore the idea of partially deconstructing the "monstrosity" of a parkade on Front Street.

On Monday, city council received a report about downtown parkade rehabilitation strategies. The report was intended to provide alternatives with regard to the remaining life cycle and the costs associated with the downtown parkade.

In 2008, the city commissioned RJC Consulting Engineers to undertake a study to evaluate the Front Street parkade from a structural point of view and to provide rehabilitation cost estimates for various life cycle scenarios.

"The Front Street parkade in New Westminster is exhibiting significant corrosion-related deterioration," said the consultant's report. "Based on the result of the evaluation, short-term, medium-term and long-term rehabilitation alternatives were reviewed in order to assist the City of New Westminster in developing a plan ranging from redeveloping the site in the near future to maintaining the parkade for the long term."

Based on the life cycle cost analysis, the consultant recommended the city invest the money required to maintain a safe parkade.

"By selecting to repair on an as-required basis, the city can elect to demolish the parkade at any time within the next 15 years and will not have spent undue additional funds," said the consultant's report. "The total investment would range from $4,087,000 to $4,305,000. As an alternate, the city could demolish the eastern portion of the parkade now, which would reduce the quantity of repair required and thereby provides the most economical 15-year solution at $3,979,000."

According to a city staff report, the downtown parking commission felt Scenario 1C (short-term rehabilitation, with the life of the parkade extended to 15 years) was the option that should be pursued given the uncertainty of the North Fraser Perimeter Road and planned development activity on Columbia Street and the waterfront.

The city's development services staff, through public consultation during the downtown official community plan review, has identified an immediate benefit to deconstructing the western end of the parkade.

"It's been a concept for staff," said Lisa Spitale, director of development services. "From a staff perspective, partial deconstruction was seen as a major step."

On Monday, council approved a motion directing staff to further investigate partial deconstruction of the west side of the parkade.

Coun. Betty McIntosh, who admitted to being a "bit of a fan" of the parkade, said she appreciated the work that has been done in the past two years to clean and brighten up the parkade. She said she likes that she can go to the parkade and not fight for a parking spot in the downtown.

"I don't think it's that ugly," she said. "I would like to see if we can brighten it up more."

With a regional commitment made to build South Fraser Perimeter Road, McIntosh asked if it's possible that Front Street would remain a local road and not part of the North Fraser Perimeter Road that handles regional truck traffic.

Jim Lowrie, director of engineering, said TransLink is proceeding with a North Fraser Perimeter Road review this year, which will consider the goals and needs of the route.

"I think that's a possibility," he said. "We have to go through that analysis."

Lowrie said the fate of the North Fraser Perimeter Road is fundamental question that must be asked. He noted it's part of the Pattullo corridor.

While there has to be opportunities for people to take transit and bike, McIntosh said there has to be provisions made for people who travel by car and need parking.

Coun. Jonathan Cote said he's no fan of the parkade as it sees it as providing a physical barrier between the downtown and the waterfront. In addition, he noted that the parkade only has a 38 per cent maximum usage.

"There are some issues with the parkade," he said. "To keep it going, it is going to require some significant investment."

A parking survey that was done in May and June 2008 showed a peak utilization rate of 38 per cent of the 800 or so stalls on the Front Street parkade. Back in 1999, a study showed a utilization rate of about 50 per cent.

Cote said he'd like to see partial deconstruction occur sooner rather than later.

"It's an ugly structure," said Coun. Bob Osterman. "It has a finite life. We have to start the process to eliminate it."

Osterman said the parkade appears as a "blob of lights" when people look to New Westminster from Surrey at night.

"I think we have to move on this," he said. "I think we have to look for partners."

Osterman said it's completely against the city's principle of a walkable community to have a "monster parkade" on the waterfront.

"The parkade has to go," said Coun Jaimie McEvoy. "I have believed that for years."

McEvoy said the parkade hurts the area's heritage values and needs to be demolished to protect the commercial viability of the downtown. While some cities have riverfronts that are successful despite the presence of trains, he said that's not the case in New Westminster.

"We don't because we have covered it with a monstrosity," he said.

McEvoy said the city needs to improve links between the downtown and the waterfront. He believes the only way to do that is to demolish the parkade.

"Get that beast out of the way," said McEvoy, noting its removal would allow people to see the beautiful heritage buildings on Front Street and the Fraser River.

Coun. Bill Harper noted that the report provided deconstruction options for the short-, medium- and long-term, with the years ranging from five to 15 to 30 years.

"If we are actually going to make that decision, it is a fairly definite decision," he said, noting that preservation of the parkade requires certain maintenance to be done.

Lowrie said staff assumed the city would be keeping the parkade for at least five years. He said it's estimated to cost $1.5 million to tear down half of the parkade.

A staff report stated that there was about $1 million in the city's parkade reserve fund at the beginning of 2008. If no major rehabilitation spending occurs, the parkade nets a surplus of approximately $300,000 yearly.

© The Record (New Westminster) 2009

[Metro-One]

Am i the only person who actually kind of likes the "monstrosity" parkade in New West? It has an east coast gritty feel that is not found anywhere else in the lower mainland. I love driving under it, makes you feel you are in the Dark Knight! Also we would be loosing a great variety piece in set locations for movies in Van. many "New York" and "Chicago" scenes have been filmed under there.

[SpongeG]

yah i kinda liked it from underneath

but it really does cut off front street from the water

no point doing it until the waterfront is done or getting something

[vanman]

^True they should wait til there are real plans to redevelop the waterfront and not demolish it simply because it's hideous (which it absolutely is, especially from Surrey, the only thing being worse would be the towers at the quay)

[SpongeG]

School site list narrowed down for open houses

After 10 years of debate and discussion, the New Westminster school district has narrowed down the possible locations for a new middle school.

The debate and discussion, of course, is not quite done.

In a series of public open houses, the district will present Lord Kelvin and John Robson elementary schools as the possible locations for the new west side middle school.

Placing the middle school on the Robson site would mean part of Simcoe Park would be needed. But if Kelvin is chosen, part of 10th Street between Moody Park and Kelvin would have to be closed.

As for a location to put a new elementary to replace the one that is displaced by the middle school, there is a myriad of possibilities.

If Kelvin were used for the middle school, the elementary could be built on part of the New Westminster secondary school property, or Lord Tweedsmuir and Connaught Heights would be expanded and students displaced by the middle school would be dispersed among those schools.

The Robson middle school option also has a pair of possibilities for the elementary.

It could also be built on the Robson-Simcoe property, or located on the land formerly used for Saint Mary’s Hospital on Royal Avenue. If the latter were chosen, the provincial government would have to purchase the land for the school district.

The options came out of three public workshops, with 80 to 100 people attending each one. Participants developed the criteria used to come up with the options.

“I think people coming to the open houses will see what a complicated process this has been,” said Jeff Malmgren, hired by the school district to facilitate the public consultation.

There was a diversity of opinions coming into the workshops and just as many differing opinions when the process ended, he said.

The first open house was held yesterday (Wednesday) at Glenbrook middle school. The second is tonight (Thursday) from 7 to 9 p.m. at John Robson elementary. Others are Saturday, Feb. 14 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at NWSS and Monday, Feb. 16 from 7 to 9 p.m. at Queen Elizabeth elementary in Queensborough.

At the open houses, 30 display boards will show the process used to narrow down the options and outlining the next steps. The public has a chance to write out comments that would be reviewed by the school district and board.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/newwestminsternewsleader/news/39459869.html

[vanman]

Noticed the other day that a sign has been put up on Edmonds st near Griffiths for a new condo tower called Reflections. It's by LEDMAC and the property has already been rezoned and partially cleared. I figured that LEDMAC would hold off marketing until conditions improved. I guess not.

[LeftCoaster]

Interesting, some of these recent announcements have surprised me, although no surprise many have not given a date. It does not take much to announce a development.

[jlousa]

I beleive Ravman was commenting how the BC Liberals haven't dredged Bby lake after talking about it 5yrs ago. Well the reason for the lack of movement by the Province is the project belongs to the city of Burnaby. But anyways the COB released the RFP today.
Work calls for the removal of between 160,000-360,000m3. Just to give you an idea each m3 weighs almost 2tons, so that's a lot of material. As a bonus thanks to the COB's fair wage policy the taxpayers will be paying more then the should for this work.

The scope of work highlights includes the following:
• Clearing and stabilizing a designated site, provided by the City, for use as the dredgeaccess road and launch pad.
• Dredging a minimum of 160,000 m3 of in-situ sediment from a defined area of Burnaby Lake. Dredging unit or combination of units to be capable of removing a minimum of 1080 m3 of in-situ sediment per 12 hour day.
• Dewatering the dredgeate to produce a product with at least 25% solids content, suitablefor hauling in open trucks and land filling.
• Treating the dewatering liquid stream, e.g. centrate, to produce an effluent with a total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of less than or equal to the background levels in the lake + 25 mg/L and a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) concentration of less than or equal to background prior to discharging to Burnaby Lake within the inner silt curtain.
• Loading and hauling the dewatered sediment to a landfill designated by the City.
• Manage, design, construct, assemble, operate and maintain a temporary dredgeate dewatering, centrate treatment and solids handling facility for a period from two to potentially three years duration.

The tentative project milestones and the respective date for completion are as follows:
• Request for Qualification Period – February/March 2009.
• Tender Period – May 2009.
• Tender Close – end May 2009.
• Contract Award – mid-June 2009.
• Notice to Proceed – mid-August 2009.
• Complete Dredging of Rowing Basin – mid-July 2010.
• Contract Completion – end June 2011.

The objective of the Burnaby Lake Rejuvenation Project (BLRP) is to improve Burnaby Lake’s ecosystem and water quality, and increase recreational opportunities. Part of the program will include dredging of an existing rowing course to meet the International Rowing Federation standards.

[SpongeG]

ALC "no" to Garden City

Nelson Bennett and Alan Campbell
Richmond News


Friday, February 13, 2009


The Agricultural Land Commission has said no, for the third time, to an application to withdraw the Garden City lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve.

"I'm very pleased with this decision and basically this is the third time the ALC has said this land should not be developed and that should be the end of it," said Coun. Harold Steves, city council's most ardent opponent of the deal.

In March 2005, the city, Musqueam First Nation and Ottawa, through its land development arm, the Canada Lands Company, announced a deal to share the 55-hectare piece of surplus land. Under the deal, which hinged on the land coming out of the ALR, the city would get half for parks and public amenities. The rest would be developed by CLC, with the Musqueam getting a sizeable chunk of the profits for economic development.

At a six-day public hearing last year, experts hired by the CLC insisted the land is not viable for farming. The ALC disagrees. In a written decision made public Friday, it concluded: "The land under application has agricultural capability and is appropriately designated as ALR."

It also ruled the application to be "inconsistent with the objective of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to preserve agricultural land." Even if the land is viable for farming, one of the co-owners - the Musqueam First Nation - said it had no interest in farming the land.

"Those lands will never be farmed," Musqueam Chief Ernie Campbell vowed at the hearing last year. Reached for comment Friday, Campbell told the News he was disappointed with the ALC's decision, but said he has not given up the idea that the Musqueam and city can still work out a deal.

But in addition to the ALC's rejection of the application, there has been a change in attitude on city council. The majority of councillors most recently voted against extending a deadline to conclude a purchase agreement - a signal that the majority of council no longer supports the deal, as it was written in 2005.

Indeed, it was a vote that signaled, to Mayor Malcolm Brodie at least, the end of the current agreement.
Brodie said Friday the ALC's decision was what he very much expected following council's change of stance.

"I'm not at all surprised, but I am disappointed," he said.

"I believed this would be the outcome after we considered the report in December and voted against enhancing the package.

"By not implementing supportive measures I believe the fate was sealed there and then."

With the purchase agreement now officially dead, Brodie said he hopes all parties will get together and renegotiate a deal which "benefits the city."

"Whether that means obtaining more of the land than first hoped for remains to be seen," he added. However, even Steves thinks some kind of new deal might be worked out, although he believes that, whatever it is, the land has to stay in the ALR.

"I hope that the City of Richmond and the consortium get back around the table and sort something out," he said. "And I hope the CLC now realize that after three times the land is not going to come out of the ALR."

The 55-hectare (136 acres) of land is currently jointly owned by the CLC and Musqueam. Should the two parties fail to negotiate something new with the city, Campbell said there could be ways around the ALR designation, which limits land uses to agriculture.

"I don't know that it's locked in the ALR," he said. "There's other avenues. There's political routes to take, and also legal routes, so we'll have to look at all our options."

Political routes could include direct negotiations with the province, which has shown a willingness to overrule the ALC in order to settle native land claims, as was done in Tsawwassen. During the recent municipal election, Richmond First candidates suggested the city might buy out the Musqueam's 50 per cent share of the land and then negotiate with Ottawa to somehow have the other half repatriated to the federal government.

"That's not even on the radar screen right at this time," Campbell said of the offer to buy his people out. "Of course, like anything, if the price is right you just never know, but I doubt it."

Jim Wright, of the Save Garden City movement, said the decision was a "big step in the right direction."

"Our goal is to keep Garden City lands green for the community benefit," Wright said.

"I wasn't surprised by the decision as I was always confident, but I didn't want to be too presumptuous.

"But after council voted in December not to extend the deadline and not to enhance the package for the ALC, in effect it was over."

source: http://www2.canada.com/richmondnews/news/story.html?id=93457cd7-db32-4436-bc95-06b507a1092f

[Metro-One]

I know this is kind of a stretch for a "suburban" update but this area is frequented by Vancouverites. I was at Harrison Hot Springs this weekend and saw that they are completely re-doing the main stretch leading to the lake front. I took 3 pictures but could only load one because i have maxed out my account on flicker this month, hehe, so two more coming in a few days.



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3459/3308444630_fff8814e6d_b.jpg

Picture is my own.

[officedweller]

Cool, thanks - the waterfront will be totally reconfigured over there.

[Spork]

Not sure if anybody else noticed, but the Safeway at 104th and KGH in Surrey has been updated at least on the exterior. It looks a LOT better now.

[Whalleyboy]

they added a starbucks inside

[vanman]

Progress of the Burnaby public library going up at Edmonds and Kingsway taken by me yesterday:

[officedweller]

From the Richmond Review:

Richmond planning for destination museum


Conceptual picture of how a destination museum in Richmond could look.

By Matthew Hoekstra - Richmond Review

Published: February 25, 2009 11:00 AM
Updated: February 25, 2009 12:47 PM

Richmond is positioning itself to build a one-of-a-kind $45-million destination museum and vault it to the top of a priority list at city hall.

A study ordered by city council favouring the idea is laying the groundwork for a 60,000-square-foot tourist attraction unlike any other in the Lower Mainland.

The idea is to replace the 2,100-square-foot Richmond Museum with a facility capable of luring international exhibitions and drawing enough tourists to eventually be self-sustainable.

The Arlington Group-led study suggests a city centre location near a Canada Line station—possible along the Middle Arm near the Richmond Olympic Oval.

Heritage consultant Donald Luxton said "the timing is perfect."

"The museum that exists now is overdue for something to happen," he said. "Nobody else is doing it. As the population in the Lower Mainland grows there is every reason to believe there will be a need for facilities that deal with culture and history."

The city's cultural services department argues a destination museum would be the cultural equivalent "iconic landmark" to the Richmond Olympic Oval. It's suggesting the museum have a "Richmond Olympic Room," a permanent display dedicated to the 2010 Games.

City council is expected to offer its formal endorsement at its March 6 meeting.

At a council committee meeting Tuesday, councillors expressed concern about the cost in light of a list of other planned capital projects.

In a 2007 ranking of needed recreation and cultural facilities, a museum ranked eighth, below a new aquatic centre, seniors centre and improvements to Terra Nova Rural Park.

The largest capital expense the city is facing in the post-oval era is the so-called community safety building. Discussed for years at the council table, the building is to replace Fire Hall No. 1 and RCMP headquarters. A source told The Review last year it could cost $90 million.

Senior manager Cathy Carlile told councillors that endorsing the museum was "a very bold move," but insisted the time is right to take advantage of senior government funding.

While cautioning their figures are "ball park estimates," staff believe both the provincial and federal governments could ante up as much as $13 million each.

That, coupled with an ambitious $6-million fundraising plan from the Richmond Museum Society, would leave taxpayers on the hook for just $14 million.

The society plans to launch its "Obama style" fundraising campaign in September, by collecting donations online—everything from a few dollars from children to a few hundred thousand dollars from deep-pocketed donors.

"It's rare you can have schoolchildren wanting to donate," said society president Jack Wong. "It gives them an opportunity to participate in the project."

Wong said people who attended an open house last fall wanted a place to discover what the city—and its people—are all about.

"This is such an important part of a community," he said. "A museum to me is a lot more than just a place to visit and spend an afternoon, it's an educational place."

Coun. Harold Steves said in 1986 a new museum was priority No. 1, but the proejct fell through the cracks. He said not pursuing it was "my biggest mistake in politics."

"The time for this is now because we are looking at federal and provincial funding," he said. "This is not money that would be going someplace else."

But Coun. Greg Halsey-Brandt was more cautious, noting last fall's open house isn't necessarily an accurate baraometer of public opinion.

"When you think of spending $45 million, and 200 people dropped by, that's not an overwhelming ratio of people."

Coun. Sue Halsey-Brandt was enthusiastic about a destination-style museum.

"It's not going to be a stuffy old place," she said. "The idea of participation and interaction and involvement is absolutely key. If you provide those things you'll get a tremendous turnout."

Even with a council endorsement, the project has no timeline and isn't guaranteed to be built.

Destination cultural tourism sites have been attracted growing numbers of visitors, according to the study.

In 2007, the Royal B.C. Museum in Victoria attracted 548,000 people and the Museum of Anthropology at University of B.C. brought in 146,755 visitors.

The City of Surrey built its 24,000-square-foot museum in 2005. Although classified a community museum, not a destination museum, it cost just $6.8 million to build.

But consultant Donald Luxton also noted the facility only attracted 4,500 visitors in 2007, and called the project "a lost opportunity."

That left Luxton with a key message from the Surrey experience: "Go big or go home."

EDITORIAL: Museum might fit

Published: February 25, 2009 11:00 AM
Updated: February 25, 2009 11:28 AM
A destination museum might be the next mega project planned by the city.

In a somewhat surprise endorsement at a council committee table this week, it appears council is catapulting toward cultural capital.

In some ways, this $45-million project appears to simply be the next giant building city staffers have a penchant for planning. The oval is complete, the Garden City lands are a wash and the Canada Line project and No. 3 Road restoration is as good as done.

In balance, however, this might just work on several levels.

Richmond is culturally rich and no where else in the Lower Mainland does such a facility exist.

If council holds true to the spirit of "destination museum," then we won't see any boring dust-ridden static displays. No giant pieces of farm equipment and a tube TV replaying an educational video. No displays of fishing nets with hidden speakers offering sounds of the river.

In other words, we don't need another Gulf of Georgia Cannery.

And we certainly don't need a Surrey Museum—a smaller and cheaper version of what Richmond might plan—a bust by simple measure of its paltry sum of visitors.

A destination museum has the potential to be self-sustaining, to become like the Royal B.C. Museum in Victoria, or to a lesser degree, the Museum of Natural History in New York.

Both have rotating exhibitions and attract star shows that draw in hundreds of thousands of tourists. Both also invest heavily in maintaining attractions that people can't get enough of.

But what about all those other city projects?

What about a new seniors centre? A new performing arts centre? A new theatre? The restoration of Terra Nova's historical sites? The replacement of the Minoru Aquatic Centre?

And what about a new community safety building that won't crumble in an earthquake?

If indeed the city can make a bulletproof case that most of the money for a new museum would be coming from sources that otherwise wouldn't open their pocketbooks, a destination museum might not take the place of anything after all.

It might just be the cultural injection that Richmond needs.

[mr.x]

^ thanks for posting.....interesting, though I do believe that a Royal B.C. Museum type of museum in the region belongs in downtown, not Richmond, and a role that should be played out by the Vancouver Museum when it does move to a larger downtown venue - preferably the Art Gallery. Simply revive the Art Gallery's expansion plans by Tadao Ando:







Or better, use the post office site or the Beaty Street bus depot site a few blocks away.




$45-million and 60,000 square feet is also quite small for the "destination museum" they are boasting.

[Metro-One]

As promised here is another picture i took of the development at Harrison Hot Springs



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3320742433_f3d2ec87c1_b.jpg

Picture is my own!