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

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That is amazing to hear! This will likely be the best TOD on the continent!

Um, I don't think anything can hold a candle to the $15B Hudson Yards in New York.

[jlousa]

Thanks for all the members that sent in their support.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Thanks for all the members that sent in their support.

There really wasn't any need.

There was never any doubt Vision Vancouver would approve this, no matter what level of opposition there was. Too much opportunity for their developer-puppeteers to make some coin.

Despite the sneering condecension of many posters, nobody in that neighbourhood was suggesting Oakridge remain a suburban mall surrounded by parking lots. They were asking that the scale of new buildings more closely match those multi-unit dwellings already surrounding it.

I get that may embittered renters have no sympathy for homeowners, when they will now (through no fault of their own) never be able to afford their own in Vancouver. But each homeowner pays thousands and thousands of dollar every year to the city and they deserve to be treated with consideration by their elected representatives.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Despite the sneering condecension of many posters, nobody in that neighbourhood was suggesting Oakridge remain a suburban mall surrounded by parking lots. They were asking that the scale of new buildings more closely match those multi-unit dwellings already surrounding it.

I'm a bit surprised that they allowed the height myself. And it's a no brainer that all that greenery will cause havoc with the moisture sealing etc. resulting in some expensive fixes in the future (but ya it looks pretty now).

But, this is going to be a phased project spanning over 10 years, so a LOT of things can happen between now and then, the only thing I'm hopping is that if/when they decide to take a pause in construction until the market warrants further development, the Mall itself doesn't go to ruin as a half-🞵🞵🞵 construction site in transition.

[excel]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vision+...ty+plan+Oakridge+mall/9619695/story.html

[Steveston]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There really wasn't any need.

There was never any doubt Vision Vancouver would approve this, no matter what level of opposition there was. Too much opportunity for their developer-puppeteers to make some coin.

Despite the sneering condecension of many posters, nobody in that neighbourhood was suggesting Oakridge remain a suburban mall surrounded by parking lots. They were asking that the scale of new buildings more closely match those multi-unit dwellings already surrounding it.

I get that may embittered renters have no sympathy for homeowners, when they will now (through no fault of their own) never be able to afford their own in Vancouver. But each homeowner pays thousands and thousands of dollar every year to the city and they deserve to be treated with consideration by their elected representatives.

Love the rhetoric by the high-rise hater crowd. Go to Andrea Reimer's face and call her a "puppet" of developers. You'll be unconscious before you hit the ground.

The truth is, that Council knows how many people want to move to Vancouver in the next 30 years. They understand the basic supply-demand model, where excess demand coupled with constrained supply equals ever increasing prices. They also know that the only way that they can produce those numbers of housing units is to essentially enter into a collaborative agreement with builders. Yes, we'll let you build, but in return, you agree to build to a green standard, provide community amenities and support our desire to create walkable, transit-reliant neighbourhoods. Look where the big projects are: they're all in areas that reduce dependence on automobiles.

And to say that the developers run the place is ludicrous. Check some of the staff reports, and see how much $$ are being extracted in CACs, public art, heritage density transfers, etc. Some of the Yaletown/South Downtown projects are forking over $60m + in fees.

The idea that you could build low rise in the Broadway/Commercial Station vicinity is laughable. Once a Broadway line is built, it will be the most transit-accessible point in the entire Lower Mainland. It's the very place where you SHOULD put high density residential towers.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Steveston

Love the rhetoric by the high-rise hater crowd. Go to Andrea Reimer's face and call her a "puppet" of developers. You'll be unconscious before you hit the ground.

The truth is, that Council knows how many people want to move to Vancouver in the next 30 years. They understand the basic supply-demand model, where excess demand coupled with constrained supply equals ever increasing prices. They also know that the only way that they can produce those numbers of housing units is to essentially enter into a collaborative agreement with builders. Yes, we'll let you build, but in return, you agree to build to a green standard, provide community amenities and support our desire to create walkable, transit-reliant neighbourhoods. Look where the big projects are: they're all in areas that reduce dependence on automobiles.

And to say that the developers run the place is ludicrous. Check some of the staff reports, and see how much $$ are being extracted in CACs, public art, heritage density transfers, etc. Some of the Yaletown/South Downtown projects are forking over $60m + in fees.

The idea that you could build low rise in the Broadway/Commercial Station vicinity is laughable. Once a Broadway line is built, it will be the most transit-accessible point in the entire Lower Mainland. It's the very place where you SHOULD put high density residential towers.

Who's a highrise hater? They're the appropriate choice, in the right place. The whole 'we have to build highrises to fit everybody in" meme is tired. First we have a whole lot of empty units (see my River Green post). Second, check out the view from London's 2nd busiest tube stop (1st is Waterloo but that's skewed by all the rail connections):

[IMG][/IMG]

Notice any thing missing (hint: it's highrises). So let's dispense with the old saw that because there's a transit station all nearby development must be highrise. The Commercial/Broadway highrises will never go ahead because Vision draws a big chunk of their dewey-eyed voter base from that neighbourhood. Oakridge, not so much.

As to developers and costs: sorry that's the price of doing business. The link between developer funding and municipal candidates is clear and distasteful. Imagine the outcry if the Tories drew 90% of their campaign funds from Big Oil.

One final question: do you own a house? If you do, would you like a 45 story highrise beside it?

Image from Wikipedia Commons

[logan5]

There's actually a pretty strong buffer between the proposed towers and the single detached homes.

As far as transit goes, evidence shows that the closer someone is to a Skytrain station , the more likely they are to ride it. Metrotown Skytrain ridership is as high as 50%. Obviously not towers that are responsible for high ridership, but density does make a difference.

The reality is the residents/homeowners are getting what they want. Homeowners like whatnext don't want their neighbourhoods altered by a Norquay type plan, so the alternative is to build high density projects on mall parking lots, arterials, and industrial land. If you want human scale and also have wide open spaces, then neighbourhoods are going to have to be more open to change in places other than parking lots , industrial land, etc.

[Vin]

Yay!!

[Vin]

People should pause to realize that Vancouver is so unaffordable party due to people refusing to go highrise.

[dreambrother808]

Some arguments are pointless.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Vin

People should pause to realize that Vancouver is so unaffordable party due to people refusing to go highrise.

Agreed. The very people that argue against unaffordability are often very much in favour of policies that would make it worse. Unfortunately, some only care about the preservation of their lifestyle at the expense of others.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who's a highrise hater? They're the appropriate choice, in the right place. The whole 'we have to build highrises to fit everybody in" meme is tired. First we have a whole lot of empty units (see my River Green post). Second, check out the view from London's 2nd busiest tube stop (1st is Waterloo but that's skewed by all the rail connections):

[IMG][/IMG]

Notice any thing missing (hint: it's highrises). So let's dispense with the old saw that because there's a transit station all nearby development must be highrise. The Commercial/Broadway highrises will never go ahead because Vision draws a big chunk of their dewey-eyed voter base from that neighbourhood. Oakridge, not so much.

As to developers and costs: sorry that's the price of doing business. The link between developer funding and municipal candidates is clear and distasteful. Imagine the outcry if the Tories drew 90% of their campaign funds from Big Oil.

One final question: do you own a house? If you do, would you like a 45 story highrise beside it?

Image from Wikipedia Commons

Do you want your house to be sitting next to those buildings in London shown in your picture?

London, Copenhagen and many other European cities have all these midrises because almost the entire city is built like that. If you are willing to give up your house and have your entire single family neighbourhood torn down for such mid rises, maybe there won't be any more need for the really tall highrises built in nodes here in the Lower Mainland. But then again, for those naysayers, they will have something negative to say about ANY proposal.

In fact, having really tall buildings built only helps to enable many single family house neighbourhoods to exist, so don't get too greedy. And stop using River Green as the example for empty units, because if you drive around downtown, I would say the majority of condo buildings are filled to the rim. I see more dark empty single family houses all over the place, and they take up so much space, what a waste!!

[Steveston]

And what are the ages of those buildings in the photo? If they were to plan the land uses around the 2nd busiest tube station in London today, what types of buildings would they put there?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Agreed. The very people that argue against unaffordability are often very much in favour of policies that would make it worse. Unfortunately, some only care about the preservation of their lifestyle at the expense of others.

Oh lordy, and of course someone trots outs the disproved "if we just build lots of condos things will be affordable" cliche. Hasn't worked out so well over the last 15 years, has it? Time to stick a stake in the heart of that one.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh lordy, and of course someone trots outs the disproved "if we just build lots of condos things will be affordable" cliche. Hasn't worked out so well over the last 15 years, has it? Time to stick a stake in the heart of that one.

No, time to stick a stake in the cliche that City of Vancouver planning policies have even remotely allowed housing stock supply to respond to demand for the past several decades.

[EdinVan]

Originally Posted by Steveston

Yes, we'll let you build, but in return, you agree to build to a green standard, provide community amenities and support our desire to create walkable, transit-reliant neighbourhoods.

Community amenities my foot.

[phesto]

While I support this project, I have to say I'm surprised to see it go through with the heights that were originally proposed. I fully expected Westbank/Henriquez to scale back the heights of the towers either voluntarily after initial negative community feedback or at the suggestion of planning staff. The City won't support 40+ storeys anywhere outside of downtown except here? On a site jointly owned by Westbank? Hmmm....

If you look at the tower heights Ian Gillespie is getting on some recent rezoning applications without prior policy in place to support the height, you'll begin to notice the level of pull Gillespie has within the upper ranks of staff and council at the City of Vancouver:

• Granville and 70th (2 years before Marpole Plan - no other towers permitted on Granville)
• Oakridge (original policies for Ivanhoe suggested 20-30 storey towers before Westbank's involvement)
• 1400 Howe (city dramatically increases height through new downtown view policy for site they own jointly with Westbank, approved shortly before rezonings app)
• 5050 Joyce (upcoming - do you think 30 storeys will get approved )
• Baptist Church Site on Nelson (plans done over a year before West End Plan coincidentally allows the 50+ storey height he's proposing - when the rezoning application eventually gets submitted, I wouldn't waste my time in opposition, lol)

Simply put, Even the most influential of Vancouver's other top tier developers (ie. wall, Onni, etc.) would not be able to get these rezonings approved so easily without specific planning guidelines. Kudos to Mr. Gillespie, whatever he is doing behind the scenes...he is getting the tallest towers in town with ease!

[whatnext]

From The Mainlander:

...Corporations and the real-estate industry donate to Vision Vancouver because it pays off.

The ruling party strategically approves developments that make their donors rich. Most notably, Wall Financial was a founder of Vision Vancouver and donated $280,000 in 2011. Since Vision came to power in 2008, Wall has seen its profits increase from $18 million to $61 million.

Rize Alliance (who donated $10,950 to Vision in 2011) had their 26 story tower approved at Broadway and Kingsway, right in the heart of working class Mount Pleasant, despite community opposition of 80%.

Westbank, which donated $11,705 to Vision and $31,000 to the BC Liberals in the last municipal and provincial elections, was given a rezoning in Chinatown right in the middle of a community planning process. Next week council will be giving Westbank hundreds of millions of dollars of new density in exchange for building almost zero new social housing on the Oakridge Mall site...
http://themainlander.com/2014/03/07/bob-rennies-25000-lunch-why-vancouver-is-unaffordable/

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh lordy, and of course someone trots outs the disproved "if we just build lots of condos things will be affordable" cliche. Hasn't worked out so well over the last 15 years, has it? Time to stick a stake in the heart of that one.

Well you need to build something to accommodate population growth. You're against condos and you're against long commutes. Without densification and without endless suburban sprawl, the only thing left to achieve your dream of affordable single family homes for everyone is population (and economic) stagnation and decline.