Central Waterfront District | Waterfront Station - CRAB Park

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by djmk

those signs are too big.

i do not want to see a big KODAK or MAXELL when walking down the street. its intrusive and ugly. actually, its downright disgusting.

Its a sign. Nothing to fear. Also it would only be for about 5 of Vancouver's 100+ streets. And signs here would be a fraction the size of those.

[vansky]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm glad some people get.
Vancouver doesn't want to be New York, for those that want that you will be disappointed. Vancouver will be Vancouver and we're pretty good at it.

some people compare this city with new york all the time, eventhough vancouver really cannot compete in business activity and human capital.

[mattropolis]

I think they should move the freight yards to where Pacific Central station is now, and move all the passenger rail facilities to Waterfront station. That way you don't have the problem with building over top tracks which could be storing hazardous materials. Also Waterfront Station is in a better location for passengers arriving and departing on VIA and Amtrak trains.

[NetMapel]

Originally Posted by vansky

some people compare this city with new york all the time, eventhough vancouver really cannot compete in business activity and human capital.

I guess my posting of NYC photoes can be a bit ambigius. I was merely pointing out that tall buildings do not diminish street lives, and NYC is a perfect example of that. I completely understand that Vancouver is not NYC and will not be NYC in the foreseeable future. However, given our limited land mass in the lower mainland region, we should be studying cities like NYC to plan for our future growth. We don't have a vast amount of land to develop on like Calgary or Toronto. We are surrounded by water, rigid terrains and mountains on all four side. The only way for us to continue to grow is through densification.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

I guess my posting of NYC photoes can be a bit ambigius. I was merely pointing out that tall buildings do not diminish street lives, and NYC is a perfect example of that. I completely understand that Vancouver is not NYC and will not be NYC in the foreseeable future. However, given our limited land mass in the lower mainland region, we should be studying cities like NYC to plan for our future growth. We don't have a vast amount of land to develop on like Calgary or Toronto. We are surrounded by water, rigid terrains and mountains on all four side. The only way for us to continue to grow is through densification.

Well said.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

I guess my posting of NYC photoes can be a bit ambigius. I was merely pointing out that tall buildings do not diminish street lives, and NYC is a perfect example of that. I completely understand that Vancouver is not NYC and will not be NYC in the foreseeable future. However, given our limited land mass in the lower mainland region, we should be studying cities like NYC to plan for our future growth. We don't have a vast amount of land to develop on like Calgary or Toronto. We are surrounded by water, rigid terrains and mountains on all four side. The only way for us to continue to grow is through densification.

I don't think anyone here is saying that tall buildings and massive billboards will diminish the street life, were just saying we don't NEED them to be great. We can be great in our own way. Just because NY is great (which it is) does not mean we need to copy everything it does to be great as well. Paris is great and it's small handful of skyscrapers and non-existent billboards have nothing to do with it. There are many great cities and many ways to make a great city. Vancouver has its own method and its pretty damn good if you ask me.... and many others around the world for that matter.

[city-dweller]

Arguments from both sides of the "super-talls for Vancouver" are compelling. I like Bental 5, Shangri la, and Wall(with the 2 tone glass) and none of them are really that tall. The argument that great world cities like NYC and Paris having super-talls so we should - I don't buy it. If people want that 'feel' or 'look' they will just go there. Vancouver has an advantage as a young growing city to try unique and different approaches. If the argument is we lack defining architecture at the large scale -we all love science world but large it is not- why do it with super-talls? (for vancouver)
A few ideas:

• A bike/pedestrian bridge over false creek visually stunning by internationally renown engineers/architects.
• A unique and stunning central library.....wait..we did that already
• A waterfront station transit Hub..NOT the one proposed -maybe a seamless glass building (the mountains-the view-you get it) by Norman Foster (without any 200+ story blds on site)
• Amazing rapid transit stations like in Moscow...C-line too late(I like them so don't get me wrong)...Evergreen won't happen....M-line extension...?? Central Station face-lift??
• And my person favorite: all the civic buildings that need/are being replaced...libraries....community centers...pools(VAC you shame us)...rinks...etc (I am aware that those are tax funded projects making visionary competitive bidding a hard sell)
• Even in our parks renown architecture could flourish.

If the argument isn't architecture but having a defining building mass (and skyline) in our central district, Surrey is the answer. Vancouver with the exception of RC(future), Jameson, and HG3 is finishing its biggest build-out where the super-talls should have gone if we were going to build them. The time is for Surrey to build them. If you have been in the existing taller buildings in City Center the view is good....double that and wow. The best tax incentive for both business and development is Surrey. I sat through a public lecture with SFUVancouver about the plans for Surrey Center and the other grow centers in Surrey. There are very ambitious plans for Surrey densifying. Super-talls would anchor the region to Surrey as sister metro core echoing the draft of the newest Regional Plan with the addition of the Surrey metro core.

note: density can be achieved without using only height.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

• A bike/pedestrian bridge over false creek visually stunning by internationally renown engineers/architects.

This makes so much sense it's almost painful. The Seawall is a distinguishing mark of Vancouver. It would be great to connect the two sides.

It makes too much sense.

Can you see an iconic ped/bike bridge between Vanier Park and Sunset Beach? It would essentially turn that whole area into one large green park. How many times have you been on Sunset beach and said to yourself... look at those tents (Bard on the Beach), they're so close. Wouldn't it be nice to walk over there and go to Kits beach for the day? Connecting the Seawall to the seaside.

Or the other way, to go from Kits to the Seawall by walking or bike or rollerblades.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by mattropolis

I think they should move the freight yards to where Pacific Central station is now, and move all the passenger rail facilities to Waterfront station. That way you don't have the problem with building over top tracks which could be storing hazardous materials. Also Waterfront Station is in a better location for passengers arriving and departing on VIA and Amtrak trains.

Unfortunately that will never happen, so long as Vanterm and Centerm are still on the waterfront (which I think will be a while). A balance has to be struck between both passengers and freight on the CP tracks, that's just the way it is.

[raggedy13]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

This makes so much sense it's almost painful. The Seawall is a distinguishing mark of Vancouver. It would be great to connect the two sides.

It makes too much sense.

Can you see an iconic ped/bike bridge between Vanier Park and Sunset Beach? It would essentially turn that whole area into one large green park. How many times have you been on Sunset beach and said to yourself... look at those tents (Bard on the Beach), they're so close. Wouldn't it be nice to walk over there and go to Kits beach for the day? Connecting the Seawall to the seaside.

Or the other way, to go from Kits to the Seawall by walking or bike or rollerblades.

I agree it's a great idea and it would see extensive use but I'm sure there would be some opposition from the water taxi operators which certainly wouldn't help in moving such an idea forward.

[Lover Fighter]

A great thing about a False Creek pedestrian/bike bridge is that it would help solve the Burrard Street cycling RoW problems.

[EastVanMark]

...and would be a great connection to Granville Island as well which pardon the pun, is on an island, away from the downtown core. That place would get a lot busier if it were ever to be built

[twoNeurons]

i see no pun.

As for the Water Taxis... yes, they would have to alter their routes... but from Yaletown, the water taxis would still be useful. As well as a direct connection to Granville Island... which this bridge wouldn't be.

[raggedy13]

Granville Island is already very busy during the day, but I think the greatest advantage to a link near Granville Island would be that it could make it busier when it comes to nightlife since it would be easy to get between it and downtown at all hours, even after the water taxis normally stop running. It is really annoying trying to get from Granville Island to downtown late at night after the ferries stop.

With that said, Granville Island is really the False Creek ferries raison d'etre and I think having a pedestrian bridge too close to Granville Island would not be good because it could very well put them out of business. It would be a shame to lose one of our more iconic and novel transportation options, even if it is more costly than a free-to-use pedestrian bridge.

[city-dweller]

As an avid cycler, I would love to see any bridge. The millennium bridge in London is a good example. Its for pedestrian though. (I think we could do better on design too.)

And as a tangent back to the thread subject... Bike storage in the new waterfront hub is a must. It would allow those to bike to the transit access...skytrain etc... who don't have local service or those who don't have good storage at work.

Any thoughts on supertalls in Surrey Center?

[LeftCoaster]

I don't think we will be seeing supertalls in Surrey, at least any time in the next 20-30 years. I think it is highly probable to see some very tall buildings (in the 800ft range) but after that size it becomes exponentially more expensive to build higher. Buildings of 'supertall' height (1000ft+) are usually built only for one's ego or to make a small very expensive property financially viable to develop. I don't see Surrey having either of those necessary prerequisites any time soon.

[LotusLand]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I don't think we will be seeing supertalls in Surrey, at least any time in the next 20-30 years. I think it is highly probable to see some very tall buildings (in the 800ft range) but after that size it becomes exponentially more expensive to build higher. Buildings of 'supertall' height (1000ft+) are usually built only for one's ego or to make a small very expensive property financially viable to develop. I don't see Surrey having either of those necessary prerequisites any time soon.

Now if Doug McCallum was running things, I think the ego thing might come into play. Dianne Watts is smarter than that. We might see a super tall in Vancouver one day, who knows. Before the Shang and RC sites were approved for higher heights most of thought that the one wall centre will be the tallest building in Vancouver in our life time. Times and policies change, so don't be surprised. 30 years from now the eastside, i.e false creek flats, Strathcona etc...(which doesn't have view cones?) could be a viable area for a super tall.

Besides that if you look at the regional growth, Surrey won't be competing as much as people think with Vancouver's Downtown core. I got family out there and they always say Surrey will be the business centre of the Lower Mainland in 20 to 30 years. That usually comes with a smirk and shrug of the shoulders.

Okay now i'm rambling, when I should be at the beach

[LeftCoaster]

No, I meant ego of the developers, not the civic politicians. It doesn't make financial sense to build a supertall, especially in an area like surrey. The only reason to do it out there would be a developer with an ego (think trump) who just wants a tall building with his or her name on it. like I said once you build past the magic zone of around 800ft profitability starts to drop off rapidly.

[LotusLand]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

No, I meant ego of the developers, not the civic politicians. It doesn't make financial sense to build a supertall, especially in an area like surrey. The only reason to do it out there would be a developer with an ego (think trump) who just wants a tall building with his or her name on it. like I said once you build past the magic zone of around 800ft profitability starts to drop off rapidly.

Got it

[SpongeG]

a briodge over false creek would have to be really high though at least as high as the cambie