Central Waterfront District | Waterfront Station - CRAB Park

[cc85]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

The majority of people who bought at Woodward's have no intention of ever living there, or going there. There are dozens of units already for sale at a premium price.

You don't want people with millions of dollars to invest to have to go down there....

Originally Posted by officedweller

A couple of scenarios come to mind -
Some European cities like Paris and London do have new highrise office districts on their firnges (La Defense and Docklands) - just not near the touristy spots (though the City in London is playing catch-up).
In Metro Vancouver and elsewhere, there has been lowrise office development in the suburbs - in office parks - and they have been quite successfully taking tenants from the more expensive downtown core. In the past, some US cities saw their densified cores wither in favour of development in the suburbs (i.e. Detroit and its suburbs).



It's buyer beware - i.e. do your due diligence. Go there at night to see if it's noisy, check out the actual location of the suite, not everyone can tolerate living downtown (and downtown won't change despite the Mayor wanting to silence sirens). Wait til the Woodward's buyers find out what neighbourhood they bought into (the display centre was in the Shaw Tower). Hmmm...



Maybe, but there's a huge backlash about spreading density around via EcoDensity. Even an incremental change in density will face opposition.
Millennium Water will probably be one of the first midrise districts in Vancouver with view potential (as opposed to the Carling O'Keefe lands on Arbutus), maybe along with Mt Pleasant. Whether or not the tightly spaced building will allow much in the way of views remains to be seen.
Lower Fairview Slopes may also fall into that category, although the density is lower, and the steep slope helps provide views.

yes office parks do infact take a lot of energy out of city cores, which is why you see so little business activity in richmond, burnaby, surrey city centres. the ability to garner plenty of parking, access to highways, low building cost, low land cost is too tempting for companies to look outside. but this short-sightedness only perpetuates urban decay and a lack of nice buidings! further, as highway access is plentiful people continue to live in neighbouring suburbs, driving where they please, continuing to devalue the promise of dense urban cores.

woodwords is shit, speculation rampent, just look at the demographics of the buyers - proof alone that its people at every segment of the socio-economic spectrum trying to get their hands on a property to flip. when you see this type of real estate activity, you realize its nothing different that the offshore buyers buying condos in coal harbour - free taxes for city hall, no burden placed on social services, but no economic spin offs from o/s residents in return, plus limited urban expansion socially speaking.

I would like to ban everyone who does not support eco density from some sorta of right or something, like the ability for cheap gas, something ridiculous, i duno, just to piss them off for my pleasure due to their stupidity. not necessarily attempt to jail them a la d. suzuki and politicians, but just make them follow the leader, you know what i mean, they are just sheep after all.

Originally Posted by worldwide

cc85. this is strange, you sound well educated and articulate but your ideas they make no sense.

did they send you over from the fraser institute?

Thank you for the compliment. I may ramble at times, I tend to lose my energy after a day of working, then spending time working on courses part time, devoting my time to a local ngo, and dealing with grad school apps. So after all of that, this place gets the remainder of my piecemeal thoughts.

no fraser affiliation for me, im a little bit more socially focused, economically.

Originally Posted by tintinium

Tokyo doesn't have many high-rises. And in general has wider streets and open spaces. It's far less claustrophobic than Vancouver.

The same goes for Osaka.

DENSITY doesn't require WALLS of Skyscrapers. I think that's the point cc85 is making.

Originally Posted by jlousa

Glad to see there are more people that share my view. Density>height.

density is goood, very good

Originally Posted by mr.x2

how in the world did a skyscraper fan forum end up with a anti-skyscraper guy?

This is simply the best place on the internet to keep myself updated on development - love it, some aspects more than others.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by cc85

yes office parks do infact take a lot of energy out of city cores, which is why you see so little business activity in richmond, burnaby, surrey city centres. the ability to garner plenty of parking, access to highways, low building cost, low land cost is too tempting for companies to look outside. but this short-sightedness only perpetuates urban decay and a lack of nice buidings! further, as highway access is plentiful people continue to live in neighbouring suburbs, driving where they please, continuing to devalue the promise of dense urban cores.

Yeah, that's the biggest failing of the Livable Region Strategic Plan - and it's really caused by the surrounding (and competing) municipalities not focussing their zoning bylaws on their regional town centres.

[officedweller]

The Bid Document (for structural services) on the City's website shows these requirements:

http://vancouver.ca/bid/bidopp/RFP/RFP_PS07152.htm
http://vancouver.ca/bid/bidopp/RFP/Document/PS07152%20.pdf

1.0 Scope of Services

(a) Central Waterfront Hub Study Plan Elements

The feasibility analysis and structural concepts shall be developed for the following elements
of the plan:

1. Creating a viaduct road network north of Cordova Street and east of Howe Street
involving (see Figure 1):
a. an eastern extension of the Canada Place viaduct, including an extension of the
waterfront walkway/bikeway,
b. a northern connection between Cordova and the Canada Place viaduct
extension from between the Landing and Waterfront Station building (“Street
A” as per Fig.1),
c. an extension of Granville Street to the north of Cordova (which will be an
update of a 2005 study concept),
d. a transit roadway connecting the extension of Granville Street to “Street A”
approximately midway between Cordova Street and the Canada Place viaduct
(“Street B” as per Fig.1).
2. Creating a new transit concourse north of the Station building, including a concept for
a pedestrian underpass of the transit roadway (“Street B”).
3. Creating two development sites above the railway tracks south of the Canada Place
viaduct extension.
4. Creating a new entrance to the Granville Square parkade from Cordova Street and
updating the cost estimate for a previous entrance design from Canada Place.

(b) Central Waterfront Hub Study Criteria

The feasibility analysis and structural concepts shall be developed in accordance with the
following criteria:

Rail
1. The need to minimize impact on railway and transit operations.
2. Consultation with the Railways to establish appropriate column spacing and locations.
3. Examination of any track-work moves required to accommodate viaduct structures or
development structures including tower cores and footings.
4. Column placement should allow for the addition of another heavy rail platform to the
north of the existing West Coast Express platforms.
5. Potential need to accommodate additional freight rail tracks.

Transit Concourse
1. Connection to the existing Expo line skytrain platforms.
2. Three connections to the West Coast Express platforms.
3. Pedestrian connection from the transit concourse to the Seabus terminal, including the
phased replacement of the existing walkway and the vertical circulation structure at
the terminal.
4. Pedestrian connection between the transit concourse and Waterfront Station building.
5. Pedestrian connection to the additional heavy rail platform.
6. A roof structure providing weather protection for the concourse.
7. At the location of the pedestrian underpass of “Street B”, the road elevation should be
minimised as much as possible under the following constraints:
i. The clear height of the pedestrian underpass should be no less than 3m.
ii Street B should be as level as possible (allowing for drainage requirements)
from the connection with Granville extension to the connection with “Street
A”.

Viaducts
1. Accommodation of future transit vehicles (bus and/or streetcar) on all viaducts.
2. Creating a good ‘urban fit’, and accommodating street trees in trenches where
possible.
3. Provide a structural concept for the extension of the Canada Place viaduct to the east
and down to Waterfront Road.

Development Sites
1. Structural impacts of the constraints imposed by the rail tracks on column placement
and elevator core locations.

Clearances
Above Rail = 7.2m
Above Waterfront Road = 7.5m or 5.2m for discrete intervals
Pedestrian underpass = 3m

[jlousa]

The number of Woodward units up for sale is 47 units out of 536, much lower then the average assignments for any project, Specturm for instance had over 30% of there units flipped before completion. The number of investors in this project were also much lower then normal due to the conditions the city placed on the project sales, everyone was limited to one unit. Anyways back onto the thread.

[jlousa]

No need to quote the older city documents here is the latest one. It's publicly available now so enjoy.

http://www.translink.bc.ca/About_TransLink/Business_Opportunities/Bid_Details/Q8-0016.asp


Fixed the link.

[officedweller]

Is that the right link for this thread?
Also, I don't think that notice includes fare gates.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

You don't want people with millions of dollars to invest to have to go down there....

yes, the fragile millionaires must be protected at all costs. you have some pretty silly concepts of the DTES. it's really not as bad as you seem to think. wealthy people aren't separate, more valuable members of the human race get some perspective.

[LeftCoaster]

A. That post made little to no sense.

B. The DTES is really that bad. You dont want a wealthy investor waiting in line being accosted by 50 different mangled hagered drug addicts.

C. Yes they are seperate more valuable members.... at least they have the money to make it that way.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by cc85

sorry, i thought good urban design was automatically factored in, i didnt address it. **** of course a blank wall is going to kill urban behaviour.

when i talk about height, im not condoning 20 story buildings, let alone 40 stories, height in OUR CDB is simply the result of land economics, and people maximizing their yield at the expense of outlying areas. go to any european city, see the skyscrapers? no, i dont i guess they have more head offices there, thats why they dont have high rises, some inverted correlation. hmm, land is more affordable, howd that happen?

spreading out development is finicky, im not talking about 0.5 far, or even 1, im talking about 70 upa/ 2.5 far; an amazing amount of green space would be left over if we did that.

i'd love to be farther away from the sea planes taking off, or the lafarge plant, or the container ships unloading, but that small 1/4 acre park down there in them streets is only enough grass for the dogs in one building to kill, oh and i forgot about the fact that the brochures never tell you about the reverberating sounds coming from all those lovely activities.



eventually you reach a point where the additional height does not provide any additional benefits for the area, simply reducing views, sunlight, as in bye bye north shore mtns, im sure if we spread that density over south slope, wed have even better views had we had this hindsight.

you live in a city not some small town

get used to it

if you want peace and quiet than move to the island or a small interior town or langley township

[mr.x]

This topic has gone completely off-topic. Get back to the original topic, or else I will place this topic in temporary suspension.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

A. That post made little to no sense.

B. The DTES is really that bad. You dont want a wealthy investor waiting in line being accosted by 50 different mangled hagered drug addicts.

C. Yes they are seperate more valuable members.... at least they have the money to make it that way.

It really saddens me that you think that way. My post makes a lot of sense if you're capable of seeing life from a bigger perspective than "money is what makes a person valuable". Viewing life from a more humane view is pretty simple to grasp, even though, yes, it is a more evolved way of looking at things.

As for being accosted, when is the last time you took a walk through the DTES? I do maybe once a month and find that no one ever bothers me. I'm for more likely to be hassled for money around Granville or Broadway Skytrain stations.

Wealthy people are often so naive and unsophisticated in their dealings with the average person on the street because they are so sheltered and disconnected. They develop these delusional perspectives of disproportionate self-importance that don't really stand the test of true value, true character. If that doesn't make any sense to you, if you can't grasp that obvious principle of life then what kind of reasonable argument could ever be made to make you see? Probably none...

[mr.x]

The thread has been re-opened. Please get back onto topic, or else this thread will be immediately closed once again.

[Hourglass]

OK, I'll bite.

My wish list?

I would love this proposed waterfront transit hub to be able to capture the life and buzz of Sydney's Circular Quay. As someone mentioned earlier, the current Seabus terminal is just awful.

The addition of a cruise ship terminal on the west side would provide more capacity for Vancouver's cruise business.

I think a concept similar to Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sculpturepark/) on the east side -- which also spans a railway line -- could work very nicely and tie Gastown to the waterfront in a creative way.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Future: Intercity Passenger Rail Services
-While not currently on the horizon, consideration shall be given to providing passenger and track capacity for future intercity passenger rail services (e.g., to Seattle and Portland) within the facility given its strategically central location and lack of alternatives.

If they move this to Waterfront, what'll become of Pacific Central?

[djh]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

OK, I'll bite.

My wish list?

I would love this proposed waterfront transit hub to be able to capture the life and buzz of Sydney's Circular Quay. As someone mentioned earlier, the current Seabus terminal is just awful.

The addition of a cruise ship terminal on the west side would provide more capacity for Vancouver's cruise business.

I think a concept similar to Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sculpturepark/) on the east side -- which also spans a railway line -- could work very nicely and tie Gastown to the waterfront in a creative way.

You raise a great point about the proposed stadium being right next to the cruise ship terminal. Think about the potential - buy a cruise ship trip pull into Vancouver, and oh look, we've got a few hours, enough time to catch a game or a concert or whatever, and hit the shops around there. Big potential - cruise ship people buy whatever's waved in front of them.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Hourglass

OK, I'll bite.

My wish list?

I would love this proposed waterfront transit hub to be able to capture the life and buzz of Sydney's Circular Quay. As someone mentioned earlier, the current Seabus terminal is just awful.

The addition of a cruise ship terminal on the west side would provide more capacity for Vancouver's cruise business.

I think a concept similar to Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sculpturepark/) on the east side -- which also spans a railway line -- could work very nicely and tie Gastown to the waterfront in a creative way.

Vancouver has many sculptures just like that: just scattered across the city parks.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

If they move this to Waterfront, what'll become of Pacific Central?

It would be a great site for a museum in my opinion...like a new home for the Vancouver Museum, if the building is reconfigured and expanded in the rear.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

It would be a great site for a museum in my opinion...like a new home for the Vancouver Museum, if the building is reconfigured and expanded in the rear.

And they should move the Planetarium into Science World.

What'll become of the old crab fountain building in Kitsilano then?

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

And they should move the Planetarium into Science World.

What'll become of the old crab fountain building in Kitsilano then?

Yea, that would be ideal actually....since really, there isn't much to do at Science World and at the same time it is actually quite busy there (for what's there to do, the admission price is also quite ridiculous). It would also give the Planetarium's exhibits some deserved attention. It would make sense to put the Planetarium under the same roof...perhaps an underground expansion under the parking lot, with the future Outdoor Experience on top. If only the government could subsidize museum admission prices, like in Europe and in Hong Kong. It cost me CAN$2.00 to get me into the space museum at Hong Kong, which is about the same size as Science World. Science World costs 8x more.

I'm quite sure the observatory at Kits is near-useless, with all that light pollution coming from downtown. The building at Kits could be converted into another museum?....I know that there is an organization in the city that has been wanting to create a children's cultural museum for quite some time now.

With regards to the Waterfront, I really hope it's something they won't be cheapening on. And I also hope its design is truly in mind for well into the future. I can quite see this tieing in with the renewed West Coast Express contract in 2014, perhaps with bi-directional all-day service on two tracks...and with the new transit hub finished by then as well.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

Yea, that would be ideal actually....since really, there isn't much to do at Science World and at the same time it is actually quite busy there (for what's there to do, the admission price is also quite ridiculous). It would also give the Planetarium's exhibits some deserved attention. It would make sense to put the Planetarium under the same roof...perhaps an underground expansion under the parking lot, with the future Outdoor Experience on top. If only the government could subsidize museum admission prices, like in Europe and in Hong Kong. It cost me CAN$2.00 to get me into the space museum at Hong Kong, which is about the same size as Science World. Science World costs 8x more.

That whole area around the False Creek Flats should become a concentration area for museums. I'd also like to see the Royal BC Museum relocated from Victoria and setting up in the neighbourhood, combined with the Museum of Anthropology's collection. It's bound to be a lot more convenient and attract a lot more visitors than having it out in Victoria or Point Grey, don't you think?