Broadway Corridor Updates

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

To be fair, people bring up "Manhattan" as a negative all the time.

Yep! New York is often used as a negative by tower NIMBYs.

For London, to be honest the average person doesn’t associate tall towers with London, even if they have built some over the last two decades.

As for Toronto, I think Canadians still see their own cities as too provincial for that comparison, that said, I have personally seen it used by people I know as an undesirable look.

[giallo]

In Kelowna, when a dense development is proposed downtown, and people freak out, it's "Vancouverization"

Everywhere is someone's bogeyman.

[jollyburger]

She actually wrote this as well which wasn't included in the article.

Let me begin by saying that I totally understand that we need urgently to
build to accommodate the many people who wish to live here from now on.
It’s too bad that some thought had not been given to this issue many years
earlier and that we’re now feeling pressure from the provincial government
to do it quickly. I’m pleased to see that the development proposed is
primarily for Residential rental with some commercial on the first two
stories. That part makes sense.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20240530/documents/phea5oppose20240528-Redacted.pdf

[Vin]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Hong Kongization? Get real haha, the tower spacing is more than adequate on this site, and the tower height is nothing outrageous.

To them, anything taller than their 2-storey suburbia shack is "Hong Kongization".

[dleung]

I don't get the 1-storey podium between the 2 towers though. IMO, if the space isn't an a at-grade plaza or park, it should be a minimum 6-storey podium to minimize the amount of density needing to go into taller towers. A higher podium-top amenity next to a lower tower is better for both daylighting the amenity and visual impact on surroundings

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by dleung

I don't get the 1-storey podium between the 2 towers though. IMO, if the space isn't an a at-grade plaza or park, it should be a minimum 6-storey podium to minimize the amount of density needing to go into taller towers. A higher podium-top amenity next to a lower tower is better for both daylighting the amenity and visual impact on surroundings

It is a plaza accessible to the public..

[dleung]

Yeah, a +15 plaza leading back down to the mid block of an alleyway via zig-zagging ramps, providing a shortcut to nowhere. I'm not seeing the value of it, vs more podium units facing north (to downtown skyline) and south (more light), rather than towards each other.

Or even just another couple floors of retail and raised plazas while we're at it since these types of spaces are never that great for the public anyway but would make good semi-public program space or patios as high as L3, which is only 1 floor above the laneway.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yep! New York is often used as a negative by tower NIMBYs.

For London, to be honest the average person doesn’t associate tall towers with London, even if they have built some over the last two decades.

As for Toronto, I think Canadians still see their own cities as too provincial for that comparison, that said, I have personally seen it used by people I know as an undesirable look.

screw toronto. the east blows.

i wouldnt mind downtown looking more manhattan-eque. that would be quite lovely.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by dleung

Yeah, a +15 plaza leading back down to the mid block of an alleyway via zig-zagging ramps, providing a shortcut to nowhere. I'm not seeing the value of it, vs more podium units facing north (to downtown skyline) and south (more light), rather than towards each other.

Or even just another couple floors of retail and raised plazas while we're at it since these types of spaces are never that great for the public anyway but would make good semi-public program space or patios as high as L3, which is only 1 floor above the laneway.

I agree with you but city planners doing their thing.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I agree with you but city planners doing their thing.

I think it was the developer's idea, with his LA architect. There's no planning requirement for the design, as other West Broadway projects show.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I think it was the developer's idea, with his LA architect. There's no planning requirement for the design, as other West Broadway projects show.

I suspect the City asked for it through pre-app discussions. It's identified as a "Potential Key Site for a Larger POPS" in the Broadway Plan. Given that it's almost a full block site, I doubt Staff would have relented this early in the Plan's lifespan to extract such a key public realm improvement.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by metro-one

yep! New york is often used as a negative by tower nimbys.

For london, to be honest the average person doesn’t associate tall towers with london, even if they have built some over the last two decades.

As for toronto, i think canadians still see their own cities as too provincial for that comparison, that said, i have personally seen it used by people i know as an undesirable look.

For me, the nicest-looking Canadian city by a mile is Montreal. It has enough high rise buildings to identify it as a major urban centre, interspersed with enough period and mid-rise buildings to give it a feeling of elegance and urbanity. Toronto has some impressive buildings and streets, but personally, it jumps out at you too much, and is too overpowering. I don't know where Vancouver fits in architecturally, but the green glass, like it or not, has become sort of a trademark of the city. But I reckon the CBD view from the Art Gallery steps is pretty nice. The Hotel Vancouver, Cathedral Place, the rosy tone of Park Place, and the russet tones of the now-RBC building go well. (Yeah yeah, more blue glass and spandrel at The Georgia, but nothing's perfect)

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

/edit/
i wouldnt mind downtown looking more manhattan-eque. that would be quite lovely.

Agreed. Toronto may be impressive, but it has a 'hard' quality & isn't really charming. With Manhattan, though, a lot more money went into the city earlier in its history, so, there are a lot more beautifully designed buildings, both vertically and at street-level, plus a lot of much bigger, taller ones too.
Perhaps you might like the planned twin towers at 1444 Alberni. They look really "New Yorkish."

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by csbvan

I suspect the City asked for it through pre-app discussions. It's identified as a "Potential Key Site for a Larger POPS" in the Broadway Plan. Given that it's almost a full block site, I doubt Staff would have relented this early in the Plan's lifespan to extract such a key public realm improvement.

The site was bought with the intention of developing residential towers - initially two 23 storey towers - and included the public plaza as a selling point several years before the plan was even developed. I suspect the inclusion of a childcare is as a result of the plan.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The site was bought with the intention of developing residential towers - initially two 23 storey towers - and included the public plaza as a selling point several years before the plan was even developed. I suspect the inclusion of a childcare is as a result of the plan.

But doesn't it seem more likely that Reliance was talking with CoV planners before they got to that point. The area had a height limit of 6 storeys so you assume the plaza was some kind of trade off for more density.

Mount Pleasant plan in 2010

Pursue additional density and height beyond that permitted under
the current C-3A zoning for mixed-use developments on the
north side of Broadway to achieve a more appropriate built form
and contribute to public benefits (e.g., cycling routes, pedestrian
environment, open space, affordable housing).

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Mount-Pleasant-Community-Plan.pdf

And they already had their interim policies for the Broadway Plan in 2018 so you assume they were already quite developed at that point.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20180620/documents/pspc3.pdf

Also in 2019 Stovell said this:

He said the design that eventually goes to public hearings and in front of city council for final approval will likely be shorter than the 23-storey concept. He said the podium may be about six storeys high, and the two towers may be closer to 15 storeys.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...evelopment-heritage-neighbours-1.5125615

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

But doesn't it seem more likely that Reliance was talking with CoV planners before they got to that point. The area had a height limit of 6 storeys so you assume the plaza was some kind of trade off for more density.

Yes, I think the plaza was intended to allow more density, but that doesn't mean it was the City's idea. The design was presumably developed when Reliance bought the MEC building from the previous owner, before any funding for transit was confirmed, or the Broadway Plan initiated. I think the concept for the earlier design (with the plaza, from before 2018) was picked up by Daily Hive after there were images on the architect's website. Reliance have proposed other projects that have no policy to support the idea, despite what the City tells them, like the 'workers' tower to replace the MacBlo parkade Downtown. They usually try to gain traction by offering something - in this case, the plaza.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's pretty much a 1 for 1 replacement of the roof parkade with green space. Guess the architect really liked the view?

[jollyburger]

Dialog/Greystar

1770 W 12th Ave rezoning application

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from RM-3 (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 21-storey mixed-use rental building with a 6-storey podium and includes:

243 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market rental units;
Commercial space on the ground floor;
A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.50; and
A building height of 66.7 m (219 ft).

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/1770-w-12-ave

Building site was sold in October 2023 for $41.1 million

https://vancouvermarket.ca/2023/10/24/greystar-acquires-broadway-plan-site-in-41m-deal/

[BaddieB]

New proposal at 2111 Main (SW of Main and 5th)

The proposal calls for a pair of towers, reaching 22 storeys for the north tower and 24 storeys for the south tower — up to a height of about 238 ft, which is the underside of the view cone.

Rental housing is the primary use; there would be 446 secured purpose-built rental homes, with 230 units in the north tower and 216 units in the south tower. Based on the Broadway Plan’s prescribed ratio, at least 20% will be below-market rental units and the remaining 80% as market rental units.

A high ratio, 40%, of these rental homes will be sized for families, defined as units with two or more bedrooms. The overall unit size mix is 97 studio units, 169 one-bedroom units, 137 two-bedroom units, and 43 three-bedroom units.

Looks really nice. The pedestrian-alley-esque area looks like a nice node. This area will be very down-towny in the coming years.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/city-centre-motel-redevelopment-2111-main-street-vancouver-rezoning

[GenWhy?]

If you're into floorplans and the public realm landscape plans and don't want to be fooled by renderings you can view the package here:

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/2111-main-st