The Ultimate Vancouver Rumour Thread!

[s211]

Originally Posted by Locked In

^ Actually, I don't think the banks usually build office towers - it's usually pension funds etc, and the banks lease space (and signage).

In truth, when the last big crop of bank buildings went up, banks were typically a passive or active developer. They frequently held the underlying land and then leased it to a developer.

Nowadays, banks have largely divested their interests, and just lease space. Development/ownership's not their core business.

Those pension funds you speak of bought most of those shiny bank towers from the banks themselves.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I saw that too - I wonder how true that is? I can't really see TransLink selling cars if it's going to be refurbishing them - unless it's an exchange deal where we lease some cars to them for a few years and then receive their old SRT cars in return.

This doesn't sound like a done deal:

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-TransLi...racks-Stategic-Plan-Accomplishments.aspx

It was my understanding that Scarborough RT needed to lease some Vancouver Mark I cars to handle the increase in traffic for the 2015 PanAm games, since the conversion of RT to LRT as part of TransitCity can't be completed before 2015.

The Scarborough RT is supposed to be be shut down after the PanAm 2015 games are over so it can be converted to TransitCity LRT, but this is dependent on the state of Ontario finances at that time. In any case, the Vancouver Mark I cars would be returned to be put back into service here, or sent to Bombardier if the decision was been made to have the SkyTrain Mark Is put through a mid-life refurbishment program, or they'll be scrapped & replaced with new Mark IIs.

If Scarborough RT is shut down during the same time that the Vancouver Mark I cars are getting refurbished, it might make sense to buy the Scarborough Mark I cars (dirt cheap) and put them through a similar mid-life refurbishment program that also makes them compatible with SkyTrain (ie: remove the RT drivers position)

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

He also went on to explain how if the street car does get built they now want it to dip south in front of the Olympic Village station simply so they can take away 1 or 2 lanes of traffic from W 2 Ave.

This is unbelievable. The OV Canada Line station & Streetcar station worked extremely well during the Olympics and the right-of-way is perfect. Stretching it around onto 2nd would totally 🞵🞵🞵🞵 (that's a technical term) that intersection under the bridge.

To me this thinking is not about how we can improve transit, but how we can punish drivers.

[B]That thinking I do not like, I fully agree with enhancing public transport, but making it zig zag on the primary principal to simply punish drivers is becoming far to vindictive of thinking IMO. Especially when a rail row bed already exists in that location. This is the thinking of your Vancouver councilors.

I can kinda see the misguided idealism that would want the viaducts removed, but the re-routing of the streetcar seems like it is 100% out to punish drivers. What does staff think about this? The engineering department must be pulling their hair out!

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by s211

In truth, when the last big crop of bank buildings went up, banks were typically a passive or active developer. They frequently held the underlying land and then leased it to a developer.

Nowadays, banks have largely divested their interests, and just lease space. Development/ownership's not their core business.

Those pension funds you speak of bought most of those shiny bank towers from the banks themselves.

Thanks for the clarification s211.
----
Metro, I think that if a councilor told you, at a public open house, specifics about a (bizarre) plan by the City to punish drivers, that councilor can be named and should be made to stand by those remarks (or not).

[Metro-One]

The funny thing is I have been driving along W 2 ave the last few weeks for work and I was actually thinking to myself how that intersection is one of the few in the city where traffic actually flows well, even during rush hour. It has a very completed look to it, for pedestrians as well. I wouldn't change anything about it, it looks very clean and works well for both vehicles and pedestrians.

[BCPhil]

Before Canada Line construction started in the area, W2nd was my favorite way of getting into or out of downtown.

The dangerous move a streetcar could make is doing a turn onto a busy street. It would have to contend with cars, pedestrians and bikes. It would slow it down immensely and I think the increased liability (higher insurance premiums for such a dangerous move) would negate any benefit of having the streetcar stop at the entrance to the station.

I don't agree with going out of the way to punish drivers, but this is beyond that, it would significantly increase the cost of building and operating the streetcar, and increase the transit time to go end to end. It would make the streetcar an annoyance to both users and potential users. You don't gain riders by annoying them first, you MAKE THEM JEALOUS!

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Locked In

Thanks for the clarification s211.
----
Metro, I think that if a councilor told you, at a public open house, specifics about a (bizarre) plan by the City to punish drivers, that councilor can be named and should be made to stand by those remarks (or not).

I hope this is okay with Metro but the name he gave me, when I asked which councillor it was, was in fact not a councillor at all. Apparently some staff person. It's important to be clear about this.

[Metro-One]

Yeah, I assumed he was a councilor and he kind of introduced himself as such. Either way, he works for the city and I am not sure if it is better or worse that he is not a councilor.

Here is what is described on his business card:

"Senior Planner, City Plans, Community Services"

Maybe someone here can clarify how much power such an individual holds, for he could be echoing what some missguided councilors are saying for all I know.

Either way, it is a very bad idea!

[jlousa]

You are free to list his name, as he was working in an official capacity if you want.

[officedweller]

On the question of decisions being rubber-stamped - from CKNW

City crews back-off installing bike lane signals pre-maturely

5/19/2010

"It was all a big mistake."

That's according to the City of Vancouver after crews started installing traffic signals for cyclists along Dunsmuir even before council made a decision on dedicated bike lanes for the route.

Assistant City Engineer of Transportation Jerry Dobrovolny says crews made an error by starting to install the cycling signals.

The work was stopped when the city received a call from the Executive Director of the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association Charles Gauthier who wasn't impressed.

"It confirms that decisions are made in advance you really can't change things," Gauthier said.

A public hearing was held last month but Dobrovolny insists no decisions have been made.

The issue goes to council on Thursday.

http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1231842

[cornholio]

This city council needs to be tossed out ASAP before they do anymore damage and the way municipal governments are run needs to be reformed. Its clear that municipal governments are corrupt. Power + no oversight = corruption.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I was talking to one of the Vancouver councilors the other night at the Broadway Rapid Transit Expansion open house, and I asked him about future road use in Metro-Vancouver and he said "We are planning on tearing down the viaducts". He didn't say "we are studying" or "we may be" he said "we are planning to" This tells me that some councilors minds are made up and they sure are not waiting for any study. (A study I believe is going to be biased in the first place, when considering how it came up)

But there is the legal problem/ramifications that arises out of same. As I have previously posted, the CoV has agreed (~10 years ago) to include the Georgia Viaduct as part of the GVTA Major Road Network - It's now part of a regional by-law. It can't be rescinded without approval from the rest of Metro Vancouver. I doubt that would ever be provided.

For some reason, the Dunsmuir Viaduct was not included as part of the GVTA Major Road Network by-law. If that had been the case, the current bike lane along the Dunsmuir Viaduct would not have been legally permitted by the GVTA Major Road Network by-law as the by-law requires regional approval for any reduction in road space. Again, that's highly unlikely to have ever been approved by the GVTA.

Had the Burrard St. Bridge also been part of the GVTA Major Road Network by-law, the current bike-lane would also not have been permissable in terms of reduction of road space from 3 lanes to 2 southbound.

Technically, the CoV can tear down the Dunsmuir Viaduct if city council approved same (certainly a dumb decision IMHO) but CoV's city council cannot legally approve the demolition of the Georgia Viaduct - again based upon the GVTA Major Road network by-law.

It makes me wonder if there is any communication between the CoV legal dept. and it's councillors/planners.

[flight_from_kamakura]

cornholio, the npa was way, way worse about simply rubberstamping decisions. don't forget that this is the vancouver that they built.

[officedweller]

Consulting the legal department (in whatever endeavour) is often an "afterthought".

[officedweller]

A friend at the office said that James Schouw (i.e. Grace, Iliad, etc.) owns the Art Works / former El Patio building at Smithe & Cambie and that'll be his next project after Artemisia.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by officedweller

A friend at the office said that James Schouw (i.e. Grace, Iliad, etc.) owns the Art Works / former El Patio building at Smithe & Cambie and that'll be his next project after Artemisia.

So we'll see it sometime 2015ish? lol. I love his projects, but they certainly don't seem to move very quickly.

[SFUVancouver]

The Dunsmuir viaduct has been restricted to two lanes for years. All that the bike lane changes is the location of the concrete dividers from their useless position on the left side of the viaduct to the right side. Using the Dunsmuir protected bike lane adds 100 metres to my commute but shaves five minutes from my travel time. In this particular math equation it has shortened my commute by a third.

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

But there is the legal problem/ramifications that arises out of same. As I have previously posted, the CoV has agreed (~10 years ago) to include the Georgia Viaduct as part of the GVTA Major Road Network - It's now part of a regional by-law. It can't be rescinded without approval from the rest of Metro Vancouver. I doubt that would ever be provided.

For some reason, the Dunsmuir Viaduct was not included as part of the GVTA Major Road Network by-law. If that had been the case, the current bike lane along the Dunsmuir Viaduct would not have been legally permitted by the GVTA Major Road Network by-law as the by-law requires regional approval for any reduction in road space. Again, that's highly unlikely to have ever been approved by the GVTA.

Had the Burrard St. Bridge also been part of the GVTA Major Road Network by-law, the current bike-lane would also not have been permissable in terms of reduction of road space from 3 lanes to 2 southbound.

Technically, the CoV can tear down the Dunsmuir Viaduct if city council approved same (certainly a dumb decision IMHO) but CoV's city council cannot legally approve the demolition of the Georgia Viaduct - again based upon the GVTA Major Road network by-law.

It makes me wonder if there is any communication between the CoV legal dept. and it's councillors/planners.

On a totally unrelated note I learned recently that a corporate communications firm has been retained to help stick handle the development of a new-tallest building in the city over the next couple of years.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by cornholio

This city council needs to be tossed out ASAP before they do anymore damage and the way municipal governments are run needs to be reformed. Its clear that municipal governments are corrupt. Power + no oversight = corruption.

I was at one of the Broadway Corridor meetings and while talking to one of the Translink people I asked about the "No Cut and Cover" bylaw. He said that it wasn't actually bylaw, but a motion passed by a previous city council, and with a winky-smile said that another city council can rescind that motion before deciding on what to build in the Broadway Corridor.

That, and other conversations with the experts at the meeting, left me with the impression that SkyTrain tunnel all the way to UBC using cut & cover on 10th Ave (nothing built on/over/under Broadway itself) was their preferred option, and the consulting meetings were just a necessary exercise to give the general public the appearance that they have any influence in the decision-making process.

[ckkelley]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

On a totally unrelated note I learned recently that a corporate communications firm has been retained to help stick handle the development of a new-tallest building in the city over the next couple of years.

Cool news. Is there any chance you could narrow it down to a general neighborhood?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by ckkelley

Cool news. Is there any chance you could narrow it down to a general neighborhood?

That's all I know. We can certainly guess the two most likely sites though.

1. Pattison Toyota
2. Bay Parkade

Plus the dark horse: Ritz Carlton redesign?