Cambie Corridor Updates

[BaddieB]

No doubt there would be service disruptions, but the same would apply to 33rd and 57th. Just that those, I imagine, would be a bit easier because the line had been built with those infill stations in mind (but let me know if I'm wrong on that aspect).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

No doubt there would be service disruptions, but the same would apply to 33rd and 57th. Just that those, I imagine, would be a bit easier because the line had been built with those infill stations in mind (but let me know if I'm wrong on that aspect).

The tracks in those areas were built with that in mind. IMO it's a travesty we aren't getting a 33rd station with the Heather Lands redevelopment.

Alas, we'll never get one at 16th, nor do we really need it IMO. OV and Broadway are already really close together. OV was only added at the City's insistence and they contributed towards it. The fact remains that it's not a very busy station and not really near OV. If/when that parking lot and the land east of the Cambie bridge was developed it will be well used.

[jollyburger]

Yes, they're building a 16th infill station I saw a little kid with a pail and shovel starting work on it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Olympic Village can at least be justified by the 50 and 84. Nobody's planning a brand new station just for the 33.

Originally Posted by BaddieB

No doubt there would be service disruptions, but the same would apply to 33rd and 57th. Just that those, I imagine, would be a bit easier because the line had been built with those infill stations in mind (but let me know if I'm wrong on that aspect).

The segments at 33rd and 57th were designed to accommodate infill stations, yes. 16th was not.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

it's not an option because...it's just not an option okay

Grade of the tunnel is too steep for a station. There's no level section of track.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Yes, they're building a 16th infill station I saw a little kid with a pail and shovel starting work on it.

Did they have an orange vest?

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Grade of the tunnel is too steep for a station. There's no level section of track.

What's the figure on how steep a station can be? Because Broadway and Olympic Village are not level themselves.

In this video you can see the steeper section is from Broadway to 16, then levelling out a bit past 16th. (From 0:57 to 1:05).

I would understand that it would be impossible to build a station if it were to steep but I can't find anything saying that definitively is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQrQKlnmbQI

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

What's the figure on how steep a station can be? Because Broadway and Olympic Village are not level themselves.

In this video you can see the steeper section is from Broadway to 16, then levelling out a bit past 16th. (From 0:57 to 1:05).

I would understand that it would be impossible to build a station if it were to steep but I can't find anything saying that definitively is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQrQKlnmbQI

The line was designed without a station at 16th, and with no intention of there ever being one there, so unlike other locations for possible future stations, there wasn't a more level section of track excavated there. As you seem to think this was an oversight, the onus is on you to establish that the grade that was built could still accommodate a station.

TransLink have made it pretty clear in the recent past that they have no real interest in adding the 57th station, even though there's some cash already saved towards it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

What's the figure on how steep a station can be? Because Broadway and Olympic Village are not level themselves.

They're level. 16th is not, nor was it designed for the switches needed for the trains to stop there like 33rd/57th/Capstan are.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

They're level. 16th is not, nor was it designed for the switches needed for the trains to stop there like 33rd/57th/Capstan are.

Forgive me for not knowing my railway engineering, but how could there be switches when that stretch, like King Edward, is stacked? I get switches are needed/useful at termini, but do you need anything special on the tracks for the train to stop? Can't it just not move?

Overall it looks like the biggest impediment is the 1.7% grade on that section. I don't know if it's a dealbreaker to doable but that's just what it looks like.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

What's the figure on how steep a station can be? Because Broadway and Olympic Village are not level themselves.

In this video you can see the steeper section is from Broadway to 16, then levelling out a bit past 16th. (From 0:57 to 1:05).

I would understand that it would be impossible to build a station if it were to steep but I can't find anything saying that definitively is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQrQKlnmbQI

I seem to recall that some of the platforms on the Canada Line were built with a 0.5% grade to lessen the steepness of the grade between stations.
That's probably the tolerance.
You don' want passengers in wheelchairs or baby strollers rolling off the platform onto the tracks.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I seem to recall that some of the platforms on the Canada Line were built with a 0.5% grade to lessen the steepness of the grade between stations.
That's probably the tolerance.
You don' want passengers in wheelchairs or baby strollers rolling off the platform onto the tracks.

Someone said the short platforms helped with the gradients between stations?

Regarding longer platforms, that change would have had serious cost implications for the construction and design of the system.

The short platforms allow reasonable operating gradients between stations on the hill on Cambie St. between False Creek and Queen Elizabeth Park, which is quite steep. The stations are also very close to the surface (due to cut and cover construction). If longer platforms were to be built, the uphill stations from False Creek (Broadway City Hall and King Edward) would have had to be deeper to maintain a reasonable gradient between stations. (i.e. shortening the distance between stations means a steeper gradient between stations if the same difference in elevation is maintained – so to reduce the gradient over the same distance, you must reduce the gain in elevation => deeper uphill station)). That would mean that Broadway City Hall and King Edward Station and the tunnel around them could not have been cut from the surface but would have had to have been bored tunnel. A deep bore tunnel would have also eliminated the possibility of a future station at 33rd Ave. due to its depth.

https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009...vancouvers-new-canada-line-is-suffering/

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Someone said the short platforms helped with the gradients between stations?

Yes, that would be true.
But I also understand that the Bombardier bid also had short platforms for 2 car trains plus expansion (not 80m platforms like the Expo Line).

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/809-w-41-ave


https://www.rew.ca/properties/5767563/809-west-41st-avenue-vancouver-bc

This one was approved in 2022, includes a below-market rental housing component, and has been on the market for 47 days.

This one is coming back as a 39 storey tower.

Permit Location: 809 W 41ST AVENUE, Vancouver, BC V5Z 2N6

Job Location:

Work Description: 809 West 41st Avenue - Rezone to amend CD-1 (34) to allow for the development of a 39 storey mixed-use building over a 6 storey podium with ground floor commercial, with 402 market rental units under the Transit Oriented Areas Policy. An FSR of 16.15 and a building height of 118.3 m (388 ft.) are proposed.

Type of Work: New CD-1

https://plposweb.vancouver.ca/Public/Default.aspx?PossePresentation=Guest&PosseObjectId=261792559

Westrich Pacific

Westrich Pacific is proud to announce the acquisition of a prime development site at 809 W 41st Avenue in Vancouver, situated between Granville and Cambie Street. This strategic location places future residents just minutes from downtown and steps from convenient SkyTrain access, offering an exceptional blend of connectivity and urban lifestyle.

Plans are already underway for an impressive 39-story residential high-rise, set to redefine modern living in this vibrant neighborhood. With thoughtful design and a focus on elevating the urban experience, this landmark project will bring stunning views, contemporary homes, and outstanding amenities to one of Vancouver’s most sought-after areas. Stay tuned for more details on this exciting addition to the Westrich Pacific portfolio.

https://westrichpacific.com/project/809-w-41st-ave/

[jollyburger]

From townhouses 1.20 FSR

6333-6369 Yukon St rezoning application

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from R1-1 (Residential Inclusive) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 23-storey rental building with a 6-storey podium and includes:

276 units with 20% of the floor area for below-market units;
A floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.5; and
A building height of 82.3 m (270 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/6333-6369-yukon-st-2

[Jeffang]

Public Hearing on Jul 8, 2025

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/520-590-w-29-ave-and-4510-4550-ash-st

A TOA rezoning, "NO Secure 100% of the residential floor area as secured rental housing, and WITHOUT a minimum 20% permanently secured as below-market rental?

Could anyone tell me what's going on?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Jeffang

Public Hearing on Jul 8, 2025

https://www.shapeyourcity.ca/520-590-w-29-ave-and-4510-4550-ash-st

A TOA rezoning, "NO Secure 100% of the residential floor area as secured rental housing, and WITHOUT a minimum 20% permanently secured as below-market rental?

Could anyone tell me what's going on?

The referral report explains that the units will be secured rental. A Housing Agreement and a Section 219 Covenant are a requirement of rezoning. "The proposal includes 100% of the residential floor area as rental housing to be secured for the longer of 60 years and the life of the building. Real Estate Services staff reviewed the application pro forma and the value of securing the 230 rental housing units and have determined no CAC is required."

In terms of the below market rental units unsually required in projects like this, "The TOA Rezoning Policy requires Tier 3 projects to allocate 20% of the net residential area as below market rental, with a 10% discount from CMHC city-wide average rents. However, staff have conducted a pro forma analysis confirming that the proposal would not generate sufficient land value lift to support the inclusion of below-market rental housing on this site. In particular, the existing zoning for this site (RM-8A) already permits greater development potential than for the majority of sites zoned R1-1 in the Tier 3 King Edward StationTOA, reducing the incremental value typically associated with a rezoning in this area."

[Jeffang]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The referral report explains that the units will be secured rental. A Housing Agreement and a Section 219 Covenant are a requirement of rezoning. "The proposal includes 100% of the residential floor area as rental housing to be secured for the longer of 60 years and the life of the building. Real Estate Services staff reviewed the application pro forma and the value of securing the 230 rental housing units and have determined no CAC is required."

In terms of the below market rental units unsually required in projects like this, "The TOA Rezoning Policy requires Tier 3 projects to allocate 20% of the net residential area as below market rental, with a 10% discount from CMHC city-wide average rents. However, staff have conducted a pro forma analysis confirming that the proposal would not generate sufficient land value lift to support the inclusion of below-market rental housing on this site. In particular, the existing zoning for this site (RM-8A) already permits greater development potential than for the majority of sites zoned R1-1 in the Tier 3 King Edward StationTOA, reducing the incremental value typically associated with a rezoning in this area."

It seems the project turns to a Strata + Rental project, where those requirements under TOA policy!

THAT the application by Sightline Properties (West 29th Ave) Ltd., the registered
owner of the lands located at 520-590 West 29th Avenue and 4510-4550 Ash
Street [PID 031-644-601; Lot A Block 760 District Lot 526 Group 1 New
Westminster District Plan EPP118341], to rezone the lands from RM-8A
(Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District to increase
the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) from 1.2 to 3.0 and the maximum building
height from 11.5 m (38 ft.) to 21.3 m (70 ft.) with additional height for mechanical
appurtenances, to permit the development of a two six-storey residential
buildings and two three-storey townhouses containing 230 rental housing units.

"to permit the development of a two six-storey residential
buildings and two three-storey townhouses containing 230 rental housing units."

which means those are strata buildings with rental 230 units, and NOT a RENTAL buildings with secured rental units under TOA policy.

Those 230 units in the rezoning booklet is for Rental House Stocks of city Vancouver under TOA!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Jeffang

"to permit the development of a two six-storey residential buildings and two three-storey townhouses containing 230 rental housing units."

which means those are strata buildings with rental 230 units, and NOT a RENTAL buildings with secured rental units under TOA policy.

No, it means what it says - these will be residential buildings with rental units. If approved by Council, the City will require the developer to sign a legally binding Housing Agreement and a Section 219 Covenant to ensure they remain rental buildings.

[Jeffang]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No, it means what it says - these will be residential buildings with rental units. If approved by Council, the City will require the developer to sign a legally binding Housing Agreement and a Section 219 Covenant to ensure they remain rental buildings.

So it will be a Strata residential buildings with rental units, may be as low as 4 rental units that the City will require the developer to sign a legally binding Housing Agreement and a Section 219 Covenant to ensure they remain residential buildings with rental units, if approved by Council.