Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C

[Vin]

Yeah just yesterday alone, one flight of escalator at Holt Renfrew, one leading up to Future Shop downtown, one to Winners downtown, and one at H-mart downtown were all broken. H-Mart was smart enough to switch the direction of the working one so that people only needed to walk down. Holt Renfrew made their shoppers exercise quite a bit.

[officedweller]

Usually at Pacific Centre when one is under repair (i.e. opened up) - the other is fully stopped and you walk up or down the stopped one.

[Pinion]

I used to work in operations at Pacific Centre. People would intentionally sabotage those escalators all the time.

[LeftCoaster]

People are the worst.

[SFUVancouver]

^ Jean-Paul Sartre said it well: "Hell is other people".

[s211]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ Jean-Paul Sartre said it well: "Hell is other people".

He would have made a great clown for kids' parties.

[cornholio]

Read through it and overall the project looks good BUT I hope they do not approve it in its current form...they better not.

My problems:
1)PARKING Residential - 0.45 stalls per unit is too little and will lead to problems, has led to problems in the past and does lead to problems today. It should be a minimum of 1 stall per unit, period. You can repurpose some of them if there is some excess. Without this being corrected this project is a 100% no go for me, I dont care how pretty it looks.

2)Parking Commercial - 3.5 stalls per 1000sf gla is too little and it should match Metrotowns 4.0 where there are times when its hard to find a spot on busy days. I would not be willing to compromise on this either, although its not as bad as the residential parking issue.

3)The open space on the roof does not seem to have very good connections to the community. Most of the access points seem to be inside and I guess would be probably closed when the center is closed meaning there would be no access for the length of the east and north side of the entire development (correct me if I am wrong, I am guessing here). The access points that are outside don't seem very visible either. What I don't want is for the open space to become more of a private enclosed space. For me to agree with this development the space above would have to be open and accessible 24/7, no chance of closing it off, and no chance of me compromising on this. Also there would have to be access to it from all sides 24/7, also not willing to compromise on this either. Lastly the access points need to be visible and well marked and in prime locations, this is also a key for me.

If these issues were taken care of I would 100% support this development, but until then 0% support from me. The parking being the most important one. This development will be the center of the area and to provide too little parking would be a disaster that would be virtually impossible to fix due to the size of it and the surrounding area.

[rsxstock]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Read through it and overall the project looks good BUT I hope they do not approve it in its current form...they better not.

My problems:
1)PARKING Residential - 0.45 stalls per unit is too little and will lead to problems, has led to problems in the past and does lead to problems today. It should be a minimum of 1 stall per unit, period. You can repurpose some of them if there is some excess. Without this being corrected this project is a 100% no go for me, I dont care how pretty it looks.

2)Parking Commercial - 3.5 stalls per 1000sf gla is too little and it should match Metrotowns 4.0 where there are times when its hard to find a spot on busy days. I would not be willing to compromise on this either, although its not as bad as the residential parking issue.

3)The open space on the roof does not seem to have very good connections to the community. Most of the access points seem to be inside and I guess would be probably closed when the center is closed meaning there would be no access for the length of the east and north side of the entire development (correct me if I am wrong, I am guessing here). The access points that are outside don't seem very visible either. What I don't want is for the open space to become more of a private enclosed space. For me to agree with this development the space above would have to be open and accessible 24/7, no chance of closing it off, and no chance of me compromising on this. Also there would have to be access to it from all sides 24/7, also not willing to compromise on this either. Lastly the access points need to be visible and well marked and in prime locations, this is also a key for me.

If these issues were taken care of I would 100% support this development, but until then 0% support from me. The parking being the most important one. This development will be the center of the area and to provide too little parking would be a disaster that would be virtually impossible to fix due to the size of it and the surrounding area.

pretty much the same concern for me. however, instead of more mall parking, i would want to see more direct/covered skytrain access to the mall

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

pretty much the same concern for me. however, instead of more mall parking, i would want to see more direct/covered skytrain access to the mall

I'm wondering how hard it would be to create a direct underground connection between the mall and the station concourse.

[ryanmaccdn]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I'm wondering how hard it would be to create a direct underground connection between the mall and the station concourse.

It looks like the Plaza and outdoor retailers shown in the design rely on the traffic entering the mall from the current subway enter/exit point.

If there were underground connections it pretty much means the plaza is a dead zone and would be near impossible to attract valuable tenants.

Also if you look there seems to be a large stair case that leads from the street level to the upper park area. Unless they install escalators that park will be a dead zone. I think it would be a 3-4 story trek and people already have enough of a problem with most malls having a one story break.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I'm wondering how hard it would be to create a direct underground connection between the mall and the station concourse.

I'm pretty sure they can't do it because the existing residential/office strata is in the way. At least that's what I've heard from one person involved in the project.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm pretty sure they can't do it because the existing residential/office strata is in the way. At least that's what I've heard from one person involved in the project.

Stratas are usually willing to sell their soul or in this case grant an easement for the right amount of $$$.
It must be an engineering challenge, although I'm sure they will jump that hurdle once this thing is a go.

[jlousa]

Fairly certain anything like an easement would require a 3/4 vote and not a simple majority. The amount of money to make that happen would be ridiculous as there is enough non-support within the strata that you'd have to convince.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The amount of money to make that happen would be ridiculous as there is enough non-support within the strata that you'd have to convince.

I see getting approval fairly certain, as this being an office building and it's owners being business people.
There is zero detriment to their business dealings or market value by giving up square footage that they don't use, but using the new found funds to get a bye on monthly fees for a year or more? would be a huge incentive.
Also lots of the employees that use transit would be grateful as well, so there is a politically correct reason there also.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I'm wondering how hard it would be to create a direct underground connection between the mall and the station concourse.

I believe there's a knockout panel on the west wall of the Oakridge-41st Station concourse level to allow such an extension. And it supposedly also allows another station entrance on the northwest corner of the intersection.

[officedweller]

You can see them here:

Originally Posted by mr.x

OAKRIDGE-41ST AVENUE STATION

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Read through it and overall the project looks good BUT I hope they do not approve it in its current form...they better not.

My problems:
1)PARKING Residential - 0.45 stalls per unit is too little and will lead to problems, has led to problems in the past and does lead to problems today. It should be a minimum of 1 stall per unit, period. You can repurpose some of them if there is some excess. Without this being corrected this project is a 100% no go for me, I dont care how pretty it looks.

Westbank is trying something different here with residential parking and they should be commended. While I would personally never buy a unit without a parking space, if other want to that should be their option. There are other projects out there where developers have de-bundled the parking to allow purchasers the option of forgoing their parking stall for a discount. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but it's happening in some instances. Westbank already reduced the parking count in the Telus Garden project and didn't appear to have any issues selling the units. While that project is downtown, the density and amenities at Oakridge will be significant. Is 0.45 going too far? Maybe, but 1.0 per unit could definitely be considered excess at this location.

2)Parking Commercial - 3.5 stalls per 1000sf gla is too little and it should match Metrotowns 4.0 where there are times when its hard to find a spot on busy days. I would not be willing to compromise on this either, although its not as bad as the residential parking issue.

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned (I haven't noticed), but is pay parking going to be implemented at Oakridge following re-development? That would be one way to take the load off of parking for sure. The project is actually proposing 3.3 stalls per 1000sf, but that is still a massive number when you consider the retail space is more than doubling. The statistics show that the current demand is at 3.5 per 1000 and Oakridge is way overparked. I think that increased transit usage can make up the difference. The biggest challenge might be Ivanhoe Cambridge convincing their tenants that 3.3 per 1000 can work. If they can do that, shoppers can deal with it. Or adapt.

3)The open space on the roof does not seem to have very good connections to the community. Most of the access points seem to be inside and I guess would be probably closed when the center is closed meaning there would be no access for the length of the east and north side of the entire development (correct me if I am wrong, I am guessing here). The access points that are outside don't seem very visible either. What I don't want is for the open space to become more of a private enclosed space. For me to agree with this development the space above would have to be open and accessible 24/7, no chance of closing it off, and no chance of me compromising on this. Also there would have to be access to it from all sides 24/7, also not willing to compromise on this either. Lastly the access points need to be visible and well marked and in prime locations, this is also a key for me.

This is one area where I think the revised plans have done a good job to address the previous issues. They've gone from 5 access points to 8, and doubled the number of elevators (from 3 to 6). Moving the southern access from somewhat within the site to right at 45th Ave as well as the new location and new access point from the expanded community centre are two big changes that will really make a difference. I didn't notice anywhere that stated the rooftop amenity will only be open mall hours, I imagine it will be open most city park hours (usually 6am-10pm I think), although granted, I am speculating.

The transportation and rooftop access is detailed here: Oakridge Centre Transportation

[phesto]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

Westbank is trying something different here with residential parking and they should be commended. While I would personally never buy a unit without a parking space, if other want to that should be their option. There are other projects out there where developers have de-bundled the parking to allow purchasers the option of forgoing their parking stall for a discount. I'm not sure how successful it has been, but it's happening in some instances. Westbank already reduced the parking count in the Telus Garden project and didn't appear to have any issues selling the units. While that project is downtown, the density and amenities at Oakridge will be significant. Is 0.45 going too far? Maybe, but 1.0 per unit could definitely be considered excess at this location.

The results from reduced parking are mixed. With Telus Garden, the one bedrooms didn't come with a stall but an option to purchase one anyway and obviously with it being downtown and with so much hype for that project, it wasn't an issue. Intracorp went with approx. 0.55 stalls per unit at MC2 (Marine and Cambie) and one bedrooms without a stall are a particularly hard sell despite discounts.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by phesto

The results from reduced parking are mixed. With Telus Garden, the one bedrooms didn't come with a stall but an option to purchase one anyway and obviously with it being downtown and with so much hype for that project, it wasn't an issue. Intracorp went with approx. 0.55 stalls per unit at MC2 (Marine and Cambie) and one bedrooms without a stall are a particularly hard sell despite discounts.

Fair enough, as I said, I would never even consider a condo in this city without a parking space. What I don't understand is why regular people would have such an issue with a reduced parking count. If the developer thinks there is a market for that type of product they should be allowed to build it. I can see how people (or the city) could be miffed if they proposed 2 parking stalls per unit or something like that, but not the other way around. It's frustrating, we proposed a small rental building (to be built under the Rental100 program) with no residential parking stalls. It would have been downtown and only provided a loading area, one commercial stall and one car share (typically exchangeable for 5 residential stalls). The site was extremely well serviced by transit and very walkable, but we didn't get anywhere with the city. It seemed like the project would have met all of the city's goals but we were told we didn't have staffs support even to get it to a DP application stage. Ended up selling the site instead.

As I said before, 0.45 stalls may not be the right number, 0.55 stalls might not be either, but when the developer is proposing below the minimum I think they should be able to build it. They wouldn't do so if they didn't think it could work.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

As I said before, 0.45 stalls may not be the right number, 0.55 stalls might not be either, but when the developer is proposing below the minimum I think they should be able to build it. They wouldn't do so if they didn't think it could work.

Exactly!. The haters around here seem to scream whenever the government regulates a certain activity (example: food truck lottery), and then also complains when they don't regulate (example: not enough to help failed food trucks).