Downtown Vancouver Updates II - Page 54

jollyburger · #**1061** Posted **Mar 4, 2025, 1:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

Translink has an RFP up for 'Waterfront Cordova Viaduct Feasibility Study', no idea what this could be about.

https://discovery.ariba.com/rfx/22672751

"Cordova 3" seems to be associated with the viaducts down near the waterfront so maybe it's some of related to the Waterfront Hub or some kind of assessment on the condition of the viaduct?

Cordova 1 1983
Cordova 2 1989
Cordova 3 2002

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2018-003-release1.pdf

I assume it's the one next to the Marine Building.

https://frpd.com/marathon-developments-thurlow-cordova-viaduct/

madog222 · #**1062** Posted **Mar 4, 2025, 2:07 AM**

Thanks for finding that, yes, it would be Cordova west of Burrard.
I don't think it has to do with maintenance, that would be CoV's responsibility. Nor do I think it has to do with the Waterfront Hub, too far west.

EDIT: The CoV document you posted shows the Cordova 2 Viaduct is Translink's responsibility, Cordova 2 looks to be between Burrard and Howe. Perhaps there is a misprint in the RFP.

officedweller · #**1063** Posted **Mar 4, 2025, 7:22 PM**

When transit responsibility was off loaded by the Province to Translink, it came with some oddball major road responsibilities, including Pattullo Bridge and Riefel Island bridge. Maybe this viaduct is a part of that responsibility.

jollyburger · #**1064** Posted **Mar 4, 2025, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

When transit responsibility was off loaded by the Province to Translink, it came with some oddball major road responsibilities, including Pattullo Bridge and Riefel Island bridge. Maybe this viaduct is a part of that responsibility.

Seems like it has something to do with the Skytrain guideway underneath

Quote:

On July 25, 1995 the City Council authorized the City to enter into agreements with Marathon Realty Company Limited ("Marathon") to implement the subdivision of Lot 7, District Lot 541 and of the Public Harbour of Burrard Inlet, Plan 13607 ("Lot 7").

As a condition of approval of the subdivision Marathon has conveyed to the City the site of the Howe Street Viaduct and the site of the Cordova Street Viaduct now described as Lot 1 and Lot 2 respectively of District Lot 541 and the Public Harbour of Burrard Inlet, Plan LMP23953.

In accordance with the requirements of the Land Title Act, the City has agreed to establish air space parcels of Lot 1 and Lot 2 as highway to provide access to Lot 3 (see attached Appendix "A"). The establishment of this highway access is subject to the release of any encumbrances as charges against the air space parcels. There are no encumbrances other than BC Transit's right of way for the ALRT charged against the airspace parcel of Lot 1.

BC Transit's ALRT entrance extends into the airspace parcel in Lot 1 (as shown in heavy outline on the attached Appendix "A"). BC Transit as a condition of its release requests that it be permitted to continue to enter upon and use that part of the airspace parcel of Lot 1 (shown in heavy outline on the plan attached as Appendix "A") for the operation of the ALRT and that the Street Use Agreement be amended to implement such request.

https://council.vancouver.ca/951205/a11.htm

Zepfancouver · #**1065** Posted **Mar 5, 2025, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

They applied for the permit to demolish 1290 Hornby.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=230236534

Wall's site:

https://www.wallfinancialcorporation.com/properties-portfolio/hornby-drake

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zepfancouver

Fencing is up. I think it went up yesterday (I did not notice it when living my parkade yesterday)

Ooh! What do we have here. 889 Drake St. (Seymour Health Centre) is ready for takedown.

https://makeagif.com/i/UyxW-R

https://trafficcams.vancouver.ca/hornbyDrake.htm

officedweller · #**1066** Posted **Mar 5, 2025, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Seems like it has something to do with the Skytrain guideway underneath

https://council.vancouver.ca/951205/a11.htm

Ah, good point.

madog222 · #**1067** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 3:11 AM**

Bosa has submitted two new rezonings for the Army & Navy Cordova/Hastings site, no details though.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=256004310
https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=256017855

logan5 · #**1068** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

Bosa has submitted two new rezonings for the Army & Navy Cordova/Hastings site, no details though.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=256004310
https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=256017855

Will be interesting to see if they are following the restrictive DTES plan, or if the City is willing to go above that plan. I would imagine that the City is offering some incentives, as Sim is looking to revitalize the DTES, otherwise I don't think there would be a rezoning application at this time. The height restrictions for Victory Square/Gastown are 75/100 feet, as per DTES plan.

The Woodwards project was transformative for that block that it's on, so there's needs to be something big in order to trigger change on the Army/Navy block, or something even bigger than Woodwards (no social housing as Mayor Sim has put a freeze on), that can be transformative for the adjacent blocks.

jollyburger · #**1069** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 5:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

Bosa has submitted two new rezonings for the Army & Navy Cordova/Hastings site, no details though.

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=256004310
https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=256017855

In January.. I think they can go to ~30-40 without hitting any remaining view cones.

Quote:

One project undergoing a re-think is the redevelopment of the former Army & Navy department store property. In 2023, Bosa Properties CEO Colin Bosa told Postmedia they had initially envisioned a 32-storey tower, but that view protection rules cut that down to 17 storeys.

Reached this week, Dan Cupa, Bosa Properties’ senior vice-president of residential, said the developer is now working with Army & Navy CEO Jacqui Cohen and city staff on a new plan “that delivers additional secured rental housing and commerce space, enabled by the view protection policy changes.”

“We plan to move forward with an amended rezoning application this winter and remain committed to working with the community to bring renewal to Gastown and the Downtown Eastside while harnessing the history and spirit of Army & Navy,” Cupa said in an emailed statement.

https://vancouversun.com/news/vancouver-real-estate-view-protection-policies-relaxed

Their site seems to be too far east for the Concord Pacific NE False Creek buildings to provide much of a view cone shadow for them (if it matters)

logan5 · #**1070** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 5:51 AM**

I thought there were height restrictions because it is an historic area. Guess not. Hard to keep up with the ever changing policies.

jollyburger · #**1071** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 7:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

I thought there were height restrictions because it is an historic area. Guess not. Hard to keep up with the ever changing policies.

Yes both towers have very restrictive height restrictions (75-100 feet) so they'll need a variance.

osirisboy · #**1072** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 4:03 PM**

You would think bosa would learn what is allowed on the site before they start envisioning what they want to build

jollyburger · #**1073** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 4:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirisboy

You would think bosa would learn what is allowed on the site before they start envisioning what they want to build

That's the whole point of getting a variance. You go to council and explain your project while staff either support or oppose the proposal.

Coun Bligh got an update on the project from Bosa on January 27th

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/councillor-calendar-2025-01-january-bligh.pdf

WarrenC12 · #**1074** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

The Woodwards project was transformative for that block that it's on, so there's needs to be something big in order to trigger change on the Army/Navy block, or something even bigger than Woodwards (no social housing as Mayor Sim has put a freeze on), that can be transformative for the adjacent blocks.

Transformational visually, but has the neighbourhood actually improved?

jollyburger · #**1075** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Transformational visually, but has the neighbourhood actually improved?

The Woodward's development isn't the reason the DTES has gotten worse since 2010.

WarrenC12 · #**1076** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The Woodward's development isn't the reason the DTES has gotten worse since 2010.

No, but calling is "transformational" is a stretch, that's my point. What did it transform?

jollyburger · #**1077** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, but calling is "transformational" is a stretch, that's my point. What did it transform?

Well it provided the retail base for the neighbourhood to gentrify but it stopped there.

Quote:

According to Henriquez, “The architectural issues which we had to confront with were really not aesthetic to the same degree… Fundamentally it had to have enough body heat, and enough of a mass of people living there, working there, shopping there – all the things you have in a healthy, normal city – in order for it not to be an abandoned, vacant hole in the middle of town.”

Quote:

“It was too successful,” Henriquez claims, almost ironically. “In the course of the four or five years since we opened, the entire three block radius [around the site] has gone through a sort of renaissance in some people’s eyes, in the sense that you have dozens of incredible restaurants, services, and retail stores opening up. In other people’s eyes the change has been too fast, and much too affluent for some of the more humble people who are struggling in the neighbourhood.”

I mean if you looked at the project five years on from completion I don't think his assessment was that off base. But he didn't know how bad the DTES was going to get.

https://www.archdaily.com/580467/inclusi...s-woodward-s-redevelopment-five-years-on

officedweller · #**1078** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 6:37 PM**

Gentrification isn't always the steamroller it's made out to be.

logan5 · #**1079** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, but calling is "transformational" is a stretch, that's my point. What did it transform?

Ffs, I said for that block. Which it was.

urbanight93 · #**1080** Posted **Mar 6, 2025, 9:43 PM**

Gentrification is the much lesser of the two evils.

The term is essentially NIMBY-ism but in impoverished neighbourhoods.