Downtown Vancouver Updates - Page 412

s211 · #**8221** Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

I sure hope they move those ports someday (Vanterm and Centerm), because industrial land in the Metro Core is a waste of valuable space. IMO.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, puts the nail in the coffin for drug legalisation.

PaperTiger · #**8222** Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

And that, ladies and gentlemen, puts the nail in the coffin for drug legalisation.

Hahaha! I actually spraed a bit of coffee.

No offence Logan5 but I'm with s211 on this one.

Dude, lets go build a new (puff) deep water port in Maple Ridge, that will totally (puff) work (cough).

PaperTiger · #**8223** Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 8:20 PM**

Sorry, I didn't read back far enough to realize this was a real discussion. The port is staying were it is.

There is a reason the ports are federal jurisdiction. It's to keep them removed from the vagaries of local politics.

There is also a reason that they built Roberts bank terminals rather than expanding the existing port farther east. The inlet narrows after the second narrows and it limits that size and number of vessels that can be accommodated beyond the bridge. Not to mention the topography changes and it is much more difficult to construct terminals on steep slopes

cornholio · #**8224** Posted **Jan 16, 2012, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Sorry, I didn't read back far enough to realize this was a real discussion. The port is staying were it is.

There is a reason the ports are federal jurisdiction. It's to keep them removed from the vagaries of local politics.

There is also a reason that they built Roberts bank terminals rather than expanding the existing port farther east. The inlet narrows after the second narrows and it limits that size and number of vessels that can be accommodated beyond the bridge. Not to mention the topography changes and it is much more difficult to construct terminals on steep slopes

Thanks, makes sense. I guess that would kill my far in the future idea.
But 50 years from now who knows, maybe it will be a good idea to rebuild the TEU terminals in the Roberts Bank area with new shipping practices and modern construction techniques? Obviously a big what if and nothing we can realistically plan for or even imagine at this point.

logan5 · #**8225** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 4:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

Hahaha! I actually spraed a bit of coffee.

No offence Logan5 but I'm with s211 on this one.

Dude, lets go build a new (puff) deep water port in Maple Ridge, that will totally (puff) work (cough).

There are plans to quadruple the capacity at Prince Rupert, as well as building Terminal 2 at Deltaport which would yield a significant increase in capacity, quite possibly giving us an overcapacity which would then open the door for ceasing operations at Centerm. Port Metro also owns a large piece of land along the Fraser in Richmond, which leads me to speculate that there are plans to build a container terminal there sometime in the future. Eventually the Massey Tunnel will be replaced with probably a bridge, this would then allow larger container ships to pass through to Fraser Port in Surrey, or a new port in Richmond.

There is demand for the land that the ports operate on, as seen with the Waterfront Hub plans, and the Waterfront Stadium plan. Surely there will be even greater demand 20 years down the road as the Central Business District expands along with the accompanying high density living.

Why does this sound so crazy?

Metro-One · #**8226** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 4:58 AM**

It sounds crazy because the Burrard inlet is a natural deep water port that does not require dredging such as along the Fraser River.

not to mention the sheer billions of dollars of infrastructure that has already been built within the ports near downtown, and also the hundreds of millions they will be spending starting this year in upgrades, such as new intersections and elevated roadways.

I don't think you understand just how expensive it would be to remove and replace such infrastructure, and all of the connections in place there. Do you think CP really feels like building a new massive rail yard for no reason? Or that all the other independent businesses that rely on the ports in the area want to close up shop and move?

In fact having the ports so close to downtown adds an economic buzz to the area, who wants more bland condos to replace our true economic engine?

Also, these are all jobs near downtown and near mass transit, why do we want to push them all out to Delta Port, therefore increasing automobile dependency??

A silly idea all around IMO. The ports were originally placed there and have been expanding there for well over a century for a reason. Yes, new massive expansions will be happening elsewhere, but they are not replacements.

jlousa · #**8227** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 5:23 AM**

The ports will be expanding not moving, TSI just spent hundreds of millions expanding Vanterm a few years ago, Centerm spent even more and is operated by DPWorld. They did not drop a fortune on expansion for nothing. A natural deep harbour capable of handling Super Post-Panamex ships is very rare hence why you don't see every coastal city build a terminal.
Deltaport and the Fraser Ports are expanding just to keep up with demand not to replace anything, the Port have been buying up industrial land across the region at record pace in order to stop cities from destroying the nations economy. Here are some of the numbers from the Port of Vancouver and they have been increasing.

Quote:

Including indirect and induced effects, in round numbers, the total impacts of ongoing operations at businesses related to Port Metro Vancouver across Canada are:

129,500 jobs
$10.5 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
$22 billion in economic output
$6.1 billion in wages

Condos/office towers do not need to be next to a deep harbour port and can be located inland. Vancouver isn't running out of space, it's only run out of cheap space.

mrjauk · #**8228** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 5:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornholio

^Well theoretically the port far in the future could be moved further east down the Burrard inlet as there is room east of the Vancterm terminal, or further east. One day when the port will be in line for some major modernization and retooling it could make sense to rebuild it in a new location, likely just the Centerm terminal next to downtown, and sell the land to developers.

Anyways my twp cents.

The developer-politico nexus is what is destroying this city.

Alex Mackinnon · #**8229** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

There are plans to quadruple the capacity at Prince Rupert, as well as building Terminal 2 at Deltaport which would yield a significant increase in capacity, quite possibly giving us an overcapacity which would then open the door for ceasing operations at Centerm. Port Metro also owns a large piece of land along the Fraser in Richmond, which leads me to speculate that there are plans to build a container terminal there sometime in the future. Eventually the Massey Tunnel will be replaced with probably a bridge, this would then allow larger container ships to pass through to Fraser Port in Surrey, or a new port in Richmond.

There is demand for the land that the ports operate on, as seen with the Waterfront Hub plans, and the Waterfront Stadium plan. Surely there will be even greater demand 20 years down the road as the Central Business District expands along with the accompanying high density living.

Why does this sound so crazy?

Because industrial land in Vancouver isn't be destroyed at an already alarmingly fast rate...

Just look at all the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 being built around Terminal Ave. Downtown honestly can't provide enough variety of decent paying employment to pay for all the condos being built. If foreign investment slows down in the region, who the hell could afford to live in Yaletown? It's not self sustaining as is.

phesto · #**8230** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 9:36 PM**

Here's a rendering of Westbank's Howe and Beach proposal (coming soon):

http://www.glessnergroup.com/images/20/img_glessner_12.jpg

Metro-One · #**8231** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 9:43 PM**

Wow! just wow! Now there is a game changer and look how it is integrated with the Granville Streets Bridge, I love it, I love!

jlousa · #**8232** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 9:49 PM**

I'll post some pics of the project once I know it's been released for public consumption.

LeftCoaster · #**8233** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 10:08 PM**

Ahh the BIG proposal. I was wondering when that beautiful sucker would leak.

wrenegade · #**8234** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 10:57 PM**

Definitely an cool design. Will be interesting to see how the residents react to it. The under the Granville Bridge design that accompanies this proposal is pretty cool too.

bils · #**8235** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 11:05 PM**

wowzers - how is that all connected.... under the bridge?

s211 · #**8236** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 11:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

Here's a rendering of Westbank's Howe and Beach proposal (coming soon):

http://www.glessnergroup.com/images/20/img_glessner_12.jpg

Now that's a window cleaner's nightmare! Is the simple tower on the left part of the overall proposal?

hollywoodnorth · #**8237** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phesto

Here's a rendering of Westbank's Howe and Beach proposal (coming soon):

http://www.glessnergroup.com/images/20/img_glessner_12.jpg

HOLY MOTHER OF CHRIST! that is AMAZING! just what the doctor ordered .... BIG has not disapointed!

can't wait for the full project details to be on >> http://www.big.dk/

invisibleairwaves · #**8238** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 11:38 PM**

Hey, look, a development that builds around an elevated road structure!

officedweller · #**8239** Posted **Jan 17, 2012, 11:43 PM**

Thanks!

Would be nice if it didn't have a flat top.

I guess it's another example of a tower "twisting out of the way of a view cone?

The site on the left is supposed to be for social housing, isn't it?

I wonder how the low-rises mesh with the City's bridgehead policy (setbacks from bridges?)
Also - the low-rises appear to sit ON TOP OF Pacific Boulevard/Pacific Street.
The tall tree next to the Howe St. ramp sits in the median of Pacific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

Now that's a window cleaner's nightmare! Is the simple tower on the left part of the overall proposal?

TRUE!
But, if the facade is all balconies (and all windows are behind balconies) - the strata will say residents must clean them themselves...

idunno · #**8240** Posted **Jan 18, 2012, 12:13 AM**

Looks amazing!! I especially like the 'shards' of buildings coming up over the bridge deck.