1780 E Broadway | 144m, 125m, 122m | 44fl, 38fl, 37fl | Proposed

[Spr0ckets]

>>>>"This previously revised concept called for tower heights of 38 storeys, 29 storeys, and 31 storeys above the commercial base podium- up from the 2019 application’s heights of 30 storeys, 27 storeys, and 24 storeys.

But the latest, most ambitious revision to support 981 secured purpose-built rental homes is achieved by pursuing added density through greater height, with towers reaching 39 storeys, 36 storeys, and 35 storeys now proposed above the commercial base podium."

GOOD!

The design changes aside (for better or worse), the significant increase in density/height as well as rental units makes this a massive improvement, and with public hearings scrapped, we don't have to endure another round of Nimby-fueled nonsense clogging up the works in getting this project moving.

It's way past time that Transit hub areas like this (and the likes of Nanaimo and 29th Ave. areas) get the increase in density they should have had several years ago.

it's also good to see they're taking advantage of the elimination of parking minimums being so close to a Skytrain station - which likely helped in saving them the necessary money to add more units and density

[giallo]

The new version looks fine, and the added density is a nice bonus.

For the love of god, build it asap.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by giallo

The new version looks fine, and the added density is a nice bonus.

For the love of god, build it asap.

I know! Wonder what the next version will look like in a few years since that’s apparently all that happens with this project.

[simons]

Too bad the curvy wooden structure in the 2019 version is gone, despite how unrealistic it was.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1780-east-broadway-vancouver-safeway-commercial-drive

[Newcastle Kid]

The towers look much better, and it's great to see things come back taller and denser in Vancouver now instead of going the other way.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

GOOD!

The design changes aside (for better or worse), the significant increase in density/height as well as rental units makes this a massive improvement, and with public hearings scrapped, we don't have to endure another round of Nimby-fueled nonsense clogging up the works in getting this project moving.

It's way past time that Transit hub areas like this (and the likes of Nanaimo and 29th Ave. areas) get the increase in density they should have had several years ago.

it's also good to see they're taking advantage of the elimination of parking minimums being so close to a Skytrain station - which likely helped in saving them the necessary money to add more units and density

Public hearings are still needed in Vancouver, as the Charter hasn't been updated yet. The parking minimum legislation doesn't apply for the same reason, but admittedly the Charter changes will probably happen sometime this year.

Even once that happens, projects that don't comply with the official community plan will still be required to go before city council, so it's very likely that this proposal will still need to undergo a hearing.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Public hearings are still needed in Vancouver, as the Charter hasn't been updated yet. The parking minimum legislation doesn't apply for the same reason, but admittedly the Charter changes will probably happen sometime this year.

Even once that happens, projects that don't comply with the official community plan will still be required to go before city council, so it's very likely that this proposal will still need to undergo a hearing.

Didn't Council drop parking minimums for the residential component of Broadway Plan projects already?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

this development should have at least 2x as many units as Oakridge. ideally more. this is at the intersection of the Expo & Millennium lines. so it would be a 1 seat ride from waterfront - downtown langley. or UBC - coquitlam.

oakridge is only on the canada-line. much less potential than this location. apparently oakridge is 3,300 units. so this development is much too small.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Didn't Council drop parking minimums for the residential component of Broadway Plan projects already?

Yes, but I thought this was in reference to the provincial legislation since this Safeway site is outside the Broadway Plan

[giallo]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

this development should have at least 2x as many units as Oakridge. ideally more. this is at the intersection of the Expo & Millennium lines. so it would be a 1 seat ride from waterfront - downtown langley. or UBC - coquitlam.

oakridge is only on the canada-line. much less potential than this location. apparently oakridge is 3,300 units. so this development is much too small.

Hopefully, this will be the catalyst for more development in the immediate area. Commercial Drive, south of Broadway, has been neglected for a long time, and is perfect for some high density residential redevelopment.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

this development should have at least 2x as many units as Oakridge. ideally more. this is at the intersection of the Expo & Millennium lines. so it would be a 1 seat ride from waterfront - downtown langley. or UBC - coquitlam.

oakridge is only on the canada-line. much less potential than this location. apparently oakridge is 3,300 units. so this development is much too small.

Be careful what you wish for, this latest iteration is 7.9 FSR where as the Oakridge Centre is 4.1.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

this development should have at least 2x as many units as Oakridge. ideally more. this is at the intersection of the Expo & Millennium lines. so it would be a 1 seat ride from waterfront - downtown langley. or UBC - coquitlam.

oakridge is only on the canada-line. much less potential than this location. apparently oakridge is 3,300 units. so this development is much too small.

Trolling to bait others into another argument are we?

The unit density here is almost 3.5 times that of Oakridge as there is almost a 12 times difference in area.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Yes, but I thought this was in reference to the provincial legislation since this Safeway site is outside the Broadway Plan

Oh yes, I forgot they left the Grandview Plan alone. I guess that plan will have to be revisited, with the Provincial legislation.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by madog222

Trolling to bait others into another argument are we?

The unit density here is almost 3.5 times that of Oakridge as there is almost a 12 times difference in area.

Yeah I don't know how that makes any sense. The FSR would need to be like 20 lol.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Yeah I don't know how that makes any sense. The FSR would need to be like 20 lol.

I think it would be around 50 FSR for their requested 6600 units.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Be careful what you wish for, this latest iteration is 7.9 FSR where as the Oakridge Centre is 4.1.

thats okay, still seems low for the location. literally this is the intersection of the 2 main lines, with massive destionations on them. literally this is where there should be a 2nd downtown core density.

Originally Posted by madog222

Trolling to bait others into another argument are we?

no. but whatever you think i guess? i didnt bait anyone into arguing. i stated an opinion. they stated the opposite and decided to argue. i pointed out the fact the argument was moot, their own words even. i stopped arguing before they did. so whatever i guess.

but sure, accuse me of trolling.

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Yeah I don't know how that makes any sense. The FSR would need to be like 20 lol.

and why is a higher FSR at this location wrong? i mean literally the intersection of the expo & millennium lines.

this is literally where there should be high density. literally with a 1 seat ride, youd be able to hit up multiple universities, multiple metro cores, and everything in between. there is literally no reason this should not have high density like a 2nd downtown core.

it doesnt even look like the view cones go over this site, where as the sites around them have restrictive view cones.

this site should take advantage of the fact there arent view cones restricting its height. because the other sites, unless viewcones are changed, certainly wont be able to take advantage of it.

[Jimbo604]

And here I excitedly opened this updated thread thinking there may finally be a hearing scheduled.

That is the next step, isn't it? For council to bite the bullet and call to order the battle of the century, nimbys vs urbanists. It's been so long on this one that I'm not recalling.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

And here I excitedly opened this updated thread thinking there may finally be a hearing scheduled.

That is the next step, isn't it? For council to bite the bullet and call to order the battle of the century, nimbys vs urbanists. It's been so long on this one that I'm not recalling.

I could be wrong but if they indeed submitted a revised application it would have to go back to an Open House I think? Last rezoning I applied for was in Fall 2023 and my Open House is in Spring 2024 and they said Public Hearing would be in 1 year...

So maybe their Open House is in May or June? Public Hearing in November 2024 at the earliest?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by madog222

I think it would be around 50 FSR for their requested 6600 units.

That would truly make them MEGATOWERS

[Jimbo604]

CIBC on the corner has a sign up that they are permanently closing the branch on Jun 6th, 2024 (1pm). So something is happening on this corner, if not 1780…