Broadway Corridor Updates

[logan5]

The CoV has released some illustrations of what their vision of what Broadway would look like as a "great street". It's incredibly disappointing to see that they have no intention of addressing the problem of blank facades along newly built retail streets. The illustration shows a continuous, expressionless glass wall. As we see in neighbourhoods like Commercial Drive and Mt. Pleasant, most of the character comes from the varied colourful facades. They can even be works of art.

The City makes the same obvious mistake over and over again. They didn't need to publish illustrations , because we already have a real life soulless example at Broadway and Cambie, where the Crossroads building is, and that green glass and spandrel monstrosity across the street.

It would cost nothing to put some opaque surface that would allow the tenant to get creative with the facade, and make a huge improvement to the public realm. This ability to get creative draws a greater variety of businesses (instead of the usual rotation of bank, insurance office, Starbucks), because as an independent business, this is how you advertise, and it draws more people out to the street, because it is a more interesting place to interact with.


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/broa...ouver-concepts

[LeftCoaster]

What you are describing is architecture, that isn't factored into street design guidelines like this. The facade you see in the street design guidelines is in no way a requirement of the developments along Broadway, nor is it indicative of what the City wants the buildings to look like.

The biggest issue here is the City has no coherent plan to build this street so it's going to continue to be a mess for decades as they approach it piecemeal.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

What you are describing is architecture, that isn't factored into street design guidelines like this. The facade you see in the street design guidelines is in no way a requirement of the developments along Broadway, nor is it indicative of what the City wants the buildings to look like.

The biggest issue here is the City has no coherent plan to build this street so it's going to continue to be a mess for decades as they approach it piecemeal.

Thanks for pointing out that this is a street design exercise, and the building designs will be down to the developers and their architects. I suspect that the City's engineers, (and the planners) would have much preferred that the street was transformed either in one hit, or at the very least phased, in substantial sections. However, City Council have not prioritized expenditure on the construction, so it'll be piecemeal and will take decades given the anticipated rate of development.

Unlike earlier plans, Broadway projects see most of the public benefit turned into either below market rental housing, and some childcare, so unlike say the West End, there's no CAC fund building up to pay for public benefits or incidental improvements like street end plazas. Some of the projects (like 130 W Broadway) will opt to pay a DCL, (rather than limit the rents the developer can charge in exchange for a DCL waiver), so at least some DCLs will accrue - that project will pay $15m.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Crossroads is one of the parts of Broadway and Cambie that actually has life - if the rest of the street turns out that way, I'll count it as a win.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Unlike earlier plans, Broadway projects see most of the public benefit turned into either below market rental housing, and some childcare, so unlike say the West End, there's no CAC fund building up to pay for public benefits or incidental improvements like street end plazas. Some of the projects (like 130 W Broadway) will opt to pay a DCL, (rather than limit the rents the developer can charge in exchange for a DCL waiver), so at least some DCLs will accrue - that project will pay $15m.

It's my understand talking to Staff that most street improvements and the parklets are going to be in a development's Conditions letter. So it'll be SUPER site dependent since we have so much rental.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

What you are describing is architecture, that isn't factored into street design guidelines like this. The facade you see in the street design guidelines is in no way a requirement of the developments along Broadway, nor is it indicative of what the City wants the buildings to look like.

The biggest issue here is the City has no coherent plan to build this street so it's going to continue to be a mess for decades as they approach it piecemeal.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Thanks for pointing out that this is a street design exercise, and the building designs will be down to the developers and their architects. I suspect that the City's engineers, (and the planners) would have much preferred that the street was transformed either in one hit, or at the very least phased, in substantial sections. However, City Council have not prioritized expenditure on the construction, so it'll be piecemeal and will take decades given the anticipated rate of development.

Unlike earlier plans, Broadway projects see most of the public benefit turned into either below market rental housing, and some childcare, so unlike say the West End, there's no CAC fund building up to pay for public benefits or incidental improvements like street end plazas. Some of the projects (like 130 W Broadway) will opt to pay a DCL, (rather than limit the rents the developer can charge in exchange for a DCL waiver), so at least some DCLs will accrue - that project will pay $15m.

So the City has no say in the architecture of a particular building?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

So the City has no say in the architecture of a particular building?

Why should it? How much further do we need to push the housing command economy?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

So the City has no say in the architecture of a particular building?

Some. But the image you were objecting to didn't show any particular building - just a generic store front. It was illustrating the possible street and sidewalk layout - not predicting what the architecture will be like. And banks, insurance offices and Starbucks are all allowed to be tenants (that's down to the developer and the businesses). The City doesn't control that. If they did Scotiabank wouldn't be occupying several store fronts in the Olympic Village, underneath a big canopy that looks like it was designed with smaller cafes in mind.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Some. But the image you were objecting to didn't show any particular building - just a generic store front. It was illustrating the possible street and sidewalk layout - not predicting what the architecture will be like. And banks, insurance offices and Starbucks are all allowed to be tenants (that's down to the developer and the businesses). The City doesn't control that. If they did Scotiabank wouldn't be occupying several store fronts in the Olympic Village, underneath a big canopy that looks like it was designed with smaller cafes in mind.

This is the City’s vision for Broadway, so the buildings architecture should be taken literally. Building architecture is a hugely important for the public realm, so it’s the first thing the City should be concerned about if they intent to create a “Great Street”.

And I say banks Starbucks and insurance offices because these are the tenants that (mostly) take on these spaces. Small retro/bars want character spaces, that’s why they are willing to go literally into the ghetto to get them - ie Pidgeon, St. Lawrence etc. Yoy can’t create a great street with terrible architecture.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

So the City has no say in the architecture of a particular building?

Oh nelly more than you think!

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

This is the City’s vision for Broadway, so the buildings architecture should be taken literally. Building architecture is a hugely important for the public realm, so it’s the first thing the City should be concerned about if they intent to create a “Great Street”.

And I say banks Starbucks and insurance offices because these are the tenants that (mostly) take on these spaces. Small retro/bars want character spaces, that’s why they are willing to go literally into the ghetto to get them - ie Pidgeon, St. Lawrence etc. Yoy can’t create a great street with terrible architecture.

"The ghetto" has cheap rent.

The design guidelines around Broadway buildings has already been completed and is not a part of the street design.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

This is the City’s vision for Broadway, so the buildings architecture should be taken literally. Building architecture is a hugely important for the public realm, so it’s the first thing the City should be concerned about if they intent to create a “Great Street”.

You shouldn't take them literally. The image was commissioned by transportation engineers - you can pretty much guarantee that no architects were consulted.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Almost guaranteed the CGI guy was told to "throw up a bunch of random windows so we know what the whole thing looks like when finished." It's not like we haven't seen City Hall use these placeholder streetfronts before.

[LeftCoaster]

Honestly.

It's astounding this needs to be explained.

It's a street design exercise. Not a single note on the linked image even discusses the buildings....

[jollyburger]

They need to stick with the cartoonish pastel colours to not confuse people with the photo realistic images above



https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/poli...n-broadway.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

"3/10: still too much glass."

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by logan5

This is the City’s vision for Broadway, so the buildings architecture should be taken literally.

No they shouldn't, this isn't the cities broadway architectural and urban design guidelines, this is the public realm plan, which means it's focusing specifically on the public right of way, and show high level building massing/frontages for context. Architectural and urban design guidelines will be found in the broadway plan.

This is like looking at a massing study and complaining that the architecture is boring, or looking at an architectural render and complaining that the street ROW is not quite correct. These elements aren't what the purpose of the plans are, so it doesn't make sense to spend time putting detail into them. Do we really want the City to waste time essentially design building façades for buildings that will never look like what they designed anyways?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Do we really want the City to waste time essentially design building façades for buildings that will never look like what they designed anyways?

Wasting time and money having not only a planning department, but an architecture department...