Cambie Corridor Updates

[trofirhen]

A genuine question: does the presence of the Canada Line down Cambie mean that the entire street has to be redeveloped and reprogrammed?

What about several principal "nodes," like Broadway-City Hall, Oakridge, and 57th? (there may be others; the Olympic Village would obviously be one, but it's already close to downtown)

That way, the character of the street would remain largely intact, fewer businesses would be pummelled out of business, and the built-up areas would be centralized.

Just an idea. I noticed that Yonge Street was a bit like that, but that was a number of years ago. Worth a thought perhaps, nonetheless.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

uh, well, maybe the costs of road repairs, tree removal, water infrastructure, etc vary at rates directly proportional to population density rates. but i'd want to see that sort of relative variation in service cost-population built into the model before i'd form any opinion about raising residential property taxes or shifting tax burdens. otherwise, it's just arithmetic and oratory.

For some reason I typically associate the word "services" with community centres and other sorts of social services which commercial enterprises would not use but are funded from the municipal tax base.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

A genuine question: does the presence of the Canada Line down Cambie mean that the entire street has to be redeveloped and reprogrammed?

What about several principal "nodes," like Broadway-City Hall, Oakridge, and 57th? (there may be others; the Olympic Village would obviously be one, but it's already close to downtown)

That way, the character of the street would remain largely intact, fewer businesses would be pummelled out of business, and the built-up areas would be centralized.

Just an idea. I noticed that Yonge Street was a bit like that, but that was a number of years ago. Worth a thought perhaps, nonetheless.

i don't understand what you are saying but I would say no cambie village is the way it is and will probably stay that way for a while until demand increases or warrants change - but a lot of those walk ups are condos so I don't know how they compare if they were rentals

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i don't understand what you are saying but I would say no cambie village is the way it is and will probably stay that way for a while until demand increases or warrants change - but a lot of those walk ups are condos so I don't know how they compare if they were rentals

I believe what trofirhen is asking is.

We can expect to have the corners around the stations re-developed. But the area along Cambie between those stations does it need to be re-developed. So example you would see redevelopment at 41st and cambie with the mall and the other 3 corners. But at 37th and cambie it would stay as is.

I'm not saying I support either way just trying to translate what trofirhen is saying . Of course I could be wrong

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i don't understand what you are saying but I would say no cambie village is the way it is and will probably stay that way for a while until demand increases or warrants change - but a lot of those walk ups are condos so I don't know how they compare if they were rentals

Simply stated, it means leaving the "village" and most of Cambie the way it is, and allowing densification around "nodes" like Oakridge, and City Hall, that's all.

[wrenegade]

Does anyone know the possibly/cost/feasibility of adding a RAV station at 16th and Cambie? Obviously it would be a headache, but perhaps with a developer getting some bonus density (either on-site, transferable, or both) it could be worth while. It would make the Cambie Village much easier to access and spur more development in the area. Not that Cambie Village shouldn't be upzoned the way it is, but it's one thing to do it around King Ed and another to do it at 16th. I know it would slow down the trip from Downtown to Richmond/YVR, but I think would be much more worthwhile as compared with 33rd or 57th ave stops.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by awvan

Does anyone know the possibly/cost/feasibility of adding a RAV station at 16th and Cambie? Obviously it would be a headache, but perhaps with a developer getting some bonus density (either on-site, transferable, or both) it could be worth while. It would make the Cambie Village much easier to access and spur more development in the area. Not that Cambie Village shouldn't be upzoned the way it is, but it's one thing to do it around King Ed and another to do it at 16th. I know it would slow down the trip from Downtown to Richmond/YVR, but I think would be much more worthwhile as compared with 33rd or 57th ave stops.

Adding a station at 16th and Cambie on the Canada Line is about 99.999% impossible. Since the track is at a slope in that area. It would mean having a station at a slope. Which wouldn't be good for safety when a baby carriage goes rolling down the platform.


This was the price we paid for building a cheaper system with cut and cover technology.

[officedweller]

Yeah, a station at 16th would have required a much deeper tunnel to level out the slopes (i.e. bored tunnel via multiple TBMs due to varying soil conditions, including Little Mountain rock) - which would also have meant that King Edward Station would have been much deeper (either more escalators or elevator acess) and a 33rd Ave. future station would have been axed (too deep to be cost effective)(meaning there would forever be a gap between King Edward (25th) and 41st) - but there wouldn't have been that curve around QE Park.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Simply stated, it means leaving the "village" and most of Cambie the way it is, and allowing densification around "nodes" like Oakridge, and City Hall, that's all.

ah yes city hall is pretty much what it is already so i can't imagine much changing - the buildings right next to the station to the east are supposed to be replaced by a new development - office space for the city - and I think the arking lot to the south east of the station just north of city hall could be developed but i don't think for housing but offices or something for the city

Oakridge some of it but i don't think there is much to redo - maybe where the liquor store is could be redone to incorporate residential over retail instead of the single storey it is now

[Zassk]

Oakridge has some pretty massive plans to redevelop into highrises starting with the open courtyard beside the Canada Line station.

A node of high density will exist on the west side of 33rd in less than 10 years, hopefully along with a new station.

[whatnext]

OK this isn't really a Cambie Corridor Planning question, but when did the City reactivate those "fireworks" lights on the lamp standards in Cambie Village? I thought they were turned off after the Olympics.

[officedweller]

They've been on for a while.

After the Olympics, I heard that some of them were shuffled around, so that could explain why they would have been turned off - I think they were removed from the area north of Broadway and installed up near King Edward Station (?).

They're a permanent art installation as far as I know - like the flames and raindrops lights in Yaletown.

[jlousa]

Not much change from the original plan as far as I can see, but here's the latest emerging draft plan.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cambiecorridor/public/phase2/pdf/10jun/DraftEmergingPlan.pdf

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by officedweller

They've been on for a while.

After the Olympics, I heard that some of them were shuffled around, so that could explain why they would have been turned off - I think they were removed from the area north of Broadway and installed up near King Edward Station (?).

They're a permanent art installation as far as I know - like the flames and raindrops lights in Yaletown.

in the lighting thread - it was mentioned that they were turned off to be rewired - for the olympics they were wired to be on 24/7 and they have changed them so that they only come on at dusk

[whatnext]

I drove down 57th today past the George Pearson facility. That site is really crying out to be redeveloped, the density is so low.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I drove down 57th today past the George Pearson facility. That site is really crying out to be redeveloped, the density is so low.

I will agree in that the George Pearson Center, and the accompanying Dogwood Lodge, needs to be replaced with a modern facility as it really is showing its age both inside and out. And we, as a society, really could use more units of housing to care for the people that require the services of the facility. It houses one of the only driver rehab centers for the Lower Mainland, as well as houses 120 people(plus another 113 at the Dogwood Lodge) for people with severe disabilities who cannot care for themselves or cannot be taken care of in the home. They also offer some rehab facilities for outpatient use.

But come to think of it, the density nearby is not that much higher. I counted the number of houses in an area roughly the same size, just to the south of the lot, and there are ~130 houses in that area. 2 per house would give 260 ppl, 3 per house is 390 ppl.

[whatnext]

Definitely that type of facility needs to be retained, but wouldn't it be better to relocate somewhere more central to Metro Vancouver? Redeveloping the site would make the 57th Ave Canada Line station feasible.

I also agree the SFR density there is way too low. That area feels more like a suburb than the city.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Definitely that type of facility needs to be retained, but wouldn't it be better to relocate somewhere more central to Metro Vancouver? Redeveloping the site would make the 57th Ave Canada Line station feasible.

I also agree the SFR density there is way too low. That area feels more like a suburb than the city.

Glad we agree on keeping it. As for relocating it, relocate to where? It's part of the VGH group of facilities(which include VGH proper, UBC hospital, GF Strong, etc) so it wouldn't seem wise to separate the facility from that and the other related facilities. I would imagine that some staff is likely shared between some facilities, especially seeing as GF Strong has some related fields. And really, any property that would be of sufficient size(not necessarily as large of property as now but jamming it tight with other developments wouldn't seem wise as what happens when the facility needs room to grow in the future?) would probably be worth just as much assuming there was even property available. And i'd be afraid especially in the current climate, that things would be cutback and the facility would end up as 1/2 the facility it is now, if a move was ever attempted.

But if the density in the area was increased and a station was built, wouldn't it make more sense to build it at 59th to be more equi-distant between the other stations? I did see the towers at 57th, but 59th is < 250m from 57th, so a few minute hike at most. And the golf course clubhouse would still be closer to 49th ave anyways. Plus having a station so close to the facility would greatly improve the ability for people visiting and/or outpatients requiring some of the services or driver rehab/training. Having skytrain nearby versus bus, really makes it easier for people in mobility devices to get to as locking down, etc in a bus is a huge hassle and skytrain one just rolls on/off.

In any case, I can't see the area densifying much until areas around the stations, especially the 49th/Marine stations, are denser, which will be probably years away yet. And my guess is that the area around Oakridge mall will probably the first to really increase in density, simply due to the proximity to the mall. Exciting times!

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by City of Vancouver

Upcoming Opportunities

Staff continue to host walkabouts/workshops to hear from the community on the emerging draft plan (2.07mb) for the Cambie Corridor.

Walkabouts/workshops have now been scheduled for residents living around the Oakridge/Langara and Marine Drive stations, as detailed below:

Oakridge and Langara Stations

Date: Saturday, September 25, 2010
Time: 12:00 to 4:00 pm
Place: Meet at Langara-49th Canada Line Station

Be prepared, rain or shine, for a 2 hour neighbourhood walking tour, followed by a 2 hour session at the Oakridge United Church (305 West 41st Avenue). We will walk the neighbourhood together and then convene at the Oakridge United Church, at 41st and Elizabeth Street, to document and record your ideas, comments and suggestions.

Marine Drive Station

Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010
Time: 12:00 to 4:00 pm
Place: Meet at Marine Drive Canada Line Station

Be prepared, rain or shine, for a 2 hour neighbourhood walking tour, followed by a 2 hour session at the Don Docsteader Warehouse (8515 Cambie Street).
We will walk the neighbourhood together and then convene at the Don Docsteader Warehouse to document and record your ideas, comments and suggestions.

The comments received from these sessions will help inform the next iteration of the plan.

Please RSVP to [email protected] or call 604.871.6947 with your name, address and the session you will be attending. Please let us know if you have any specific mobility challenges or requirements.

If you are unable to attend, we will also host additional meetings, open houses and workshops later in the fall where you can provide your ideas and comments. Details on upcoming events will be posted on this page.

http://gw.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/planning/cambiecorridor/public/index.htm

Did anyone go to the Oakridge/Langara meeting, or anyone planning to go to the Marine Drive one?

[squeezied]

So has anyone attended the past two open houses? The next and last one is Thursday, December 2nd, 4 - 8pm @ Docksteader Warehouse (8515 Cambie Street (south of Marine Drive))

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cambiecorridor/public/index.htm

Anyway I attended the one today. Needless to say, alot of nimby remarks regarding density. There were a lot of visual depictions of how Cambie will look like once built out according to the plans. Here were the main changes I noted in the revised plans, hopefully I got my facts correct:

-The nodes immediately around the station will have their height and land-use remain unchanged from previous plan. Heights depend on station location. Land-use is to incorporate retail at the base.
-Aside from the nodes around the stations which will allow for greater height, the rest of Cambie will have a maxium height of 6 floors. Previous plans called for heights of 6-8 floors. (renderings depict olympic village style buildings lined one after the other, but at 6 floors)
-Similarily, aside from the nodes around the stations, Major East/West routes (king ed, 41, 49) will be solely residential and have maxium heights of 4 floors. Previous plans called for mixed-use and heights of 4-6 floors; this is to respect the residential nature of the area. (no retail on 41st ave opposite of oakridge mall as some of us would have liked to see)
-Laneway houses or townhouses were depicted between the 4 or 6 floor developments and the single family houses. This is to facilitate the transition of scale and reduce shadowing impacts on the sfh's.

Anyway I really encourage people to attend the next and last open house and especially WRITE POSITIVE AND SURPORTIVE COMMENTS! You can thank the NIMBYs for the decrease in height and loss of retail in the revised plans.