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

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

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.

There is nothing to suggest a stable population creates a weak economy. Indeed, recent studies have shown slower growing cities outperform faster growing ones:
http://www.fodorandassociates.com/Reports/Growth_&_Prosperity_in_US_MSAs.pdf

The problem is the housing being built isn't what people want. I recently posted a study showing that the majority still aspire to their own house. Failing that, rowhouses or townhouses would be a better solution than small units in highrises. Look no further than Vancouver's plummeting school enrollment to see how housing stock isn't matching families' wants. What is being built is a lot of small, standardized, easily tradeable units for investors.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There is nothing to suggest a stable population creates a weak economy. Indeed, recent studies have shown slower growing cities outperform faster growing ones:
http://www.fodorandassociates.com/Reports/Growth_&_Prosperity_in_US_MSAs.pdf

The problem is the housing being built isn't what people want. I recently posted a study showing that the majority still aspire to their own house. Failing that, rowhouses or townhouses would be a better solution than small units in highrises. Look no further than Vancouver's plummeting school enrollment to see how housing stock isn't matching families' wants. What is being built is a lot of small, standardized, easily tradeable units for investors.

But we don't have all that much space to build houses on, unless you're prepared to get rid of our farmland.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There is nothing to suggest a stable population creates a weak economy.

But that's a pipe dream here. It is a simple fact that Vancouver is a desirable area to outsiders. There will always be high demand here. If we force the population to be stable, the demand won't evaporate, the demand will push prices through the stratosphere. No, there is no going back to the 50's, not here. Density is the only rational way to address the demand placed on our city.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by whatnext

[IMG][/IMG]

Notice any thing missing (hint: it's highrises).

You know what else is missing? Greenery. When every square inch of land is taken up by low rises there is no space left for trees or shrubs.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The problem is the housing being built isn't what people want.

I think that old "wish list" has gone out the window a long time ago.
They will keep building whatever people are buying until they stop buying it, only then will they build something different.

That density sets a good precedent for future upcoming re-development of the Safeway sites at: kits, arbutus and point grey.

[dleung]

As always, you people set up a false dichotomy. There will always be a segment of the local population who are against density despite being pro-affordability, simply because it really comes down to not wanting to share this beautiful place with anyone else. Most of their other arguments are just a smoke screen.

On the other hand, density does not equate to high-rises, nor do nodial forms of regional development require high rises. The FSR in most of Vancouver's high-rise neighbourhoods is shockingly low, usually only 5 times the site area, which means the same density can be accomplished with a 6-8-storey mid-rise that covers most of the block. We keep returning to the point tower model only because it has worked before, because commodities like light and views can be easily obtained for residents without much design work, and because you can get away with cheap looking materials on a tower when it's set-back behind a podium, where most pedestrians won't notice.

I wish the city's planning department and its architects embraced more forms of development that better transition between low-rise and high-rise districts:


http://www.solaripedia.com/images/large/3979.jpg

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by dleung

As always, you people set up a false dichotomy. There will always be a segment of the local population who are against density despite being pro-affordability, simply because it really comes down to not wanting to share this beautiful place with anyone else. Most of their other arguments are just a smoke screen.

On the other hand, density does not equate to high-rises, nor do nodial forms of regional development require high rises. The FSR in most of Vancouver's high-rise neighbourhoods is shockingly low, usually only 5 times the site area, which means the same density can be accomplished with a 6-8-storey mid-rise that covers most of the block. We keep returning to the point tower model only because it has worked before, because commodities like light and views can be easily obtained for residents without much design work, and because you can get away with cheap looking materials on a tower when it's set-back behind a podium, where most pedestrians won't notice.

Superb post, it should be pinned somewhere.

Following from the point that in most cases identical densities on the same site can be achieved from either a mid-rise or a point tower, the central question for planners becomes deciding when to encourage which form. In the case of large sites that will become their own neighborhood like the Oakridge redevelopment, there are few advantages to mandating a mid-rise form that would sacrifice the qualities that towers offer their residents like light, views, and more corner layouts. But in the case of bringing density to smaller sites integrated into existing neighborhoods, there's a good case to sacrifice those qualities for a development form more closely aligned with the local context. (And I don't mean "context" in the sense deployed by nimbys to mean "all change shouldn't actually be a change.")

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by vanman

You know what else is missing? Greenery. When every square inch of land is taken up by low rises there is no space left for trees or shrubs.

Hello Yaletown. Or Downtown South.

A dleung aptly points out, not everything has to be a highrise. Vancouver and its developers always take the easy way out.

And why does everyone assume it was only the SFH owners who were against it? Several of the adjacent midrise residents were also strongly opposed.

[dreambrother808]

I am totally fine with mid-rise as well as high-rise, neither form poses a problem for me, so long as they provide density. My argument is more against the desire not to disturb the SFH-mentality, because that will not provide the density we need. At the same time, being against any kind of high-rise development outside of downtown seems silly to me.

[rofina]

I believe the fundamental issue boils down to city zoning, and NIMBYism.

There is far too much interest in maintaining SFH neighbourhoods. Everyone is opposed to density, duplexes, four-plexes, row homes. Where are these in Vancouver?

The city has taken an all or nothing approach, essentially ignoring an entire category of housing.

It simply doesn't make sense to maintain as many SFH neighbourhoods as we have. We could turn this into a 2 million person city without another high-rise.

[Vin]

I think it all boils down to selfishness, a refusal to share and unreasonable self-entitlement. Nothing more, nothing less.

[casper]

Originally Posted by rofina

I believe the fundamental issue boils down to city zoning, and NIMBYism.

There is far too much interest in maintaining SFH neighbourhoods. Everyone is opposed to density, duplexes, four-plexes, row homes. Where are these in Vancouver?

The city has taken an all or nothing approach, essentially ignoring an entire category of housing.

It simply doesn't make sense to maintain as many SFH neighbourhoods as we have. We could turn this into a 2 million person city without another high-rise.

The laneway housing is a compromise. It increases density in the SFH neighborhoods while still keeping much of the SFH stock in place.

Slowly there is increased density coming along the arterial roads while still keeping the SFH on the side streets. If you look at a street like Kingway there has been significant mid-rise and high-rise development over the past 20 years.

[dreambrother808]

Agreed. I love it when staunch supporters of the dying SFH-mentality all of a sudden try and turn it around and act like they are in favour of high-density mid-rise. Do they know what that actually looks like? Look at Madrid, for example. It is nothing like the entitled little world they believe in. It's actually more "crowded" than the Vancouver-style.


Latitude Image

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Hello Yaletown. Or Downtown South.

Oh yes, both neighbourhoods are devoid of greenery or parks until one wants to make the argument that the viaducts should not be removed because we already have too much greenery and parks...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Hello Yaletown. Or Downtown South.

A dleung aptly points out, not everything has to be a highrise. Vancouver and its developers always take the easy way out.

Have you even been to these neighbourhoods? They have a ton of parks, plus the seawall. Trees still line the streets in many areas.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Have you even been to these neighbourhoods? They have a ton of parks, plus the seawall. Trees still line the streets in many areas.

I get the feeling that many of those who hold Yaletown up as an example of how not to develop don't know much about it at all.

I'm not suggesting that we should be putting a Yaletown style development area, but there's nothing wrong with Yaletown.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by IanS

I get the feeling that many of those who hold Yaletown up as an example of how not to develop don't know much about it at all.

I'm not suggesting that we should be putting a Yaletown style development area, but there's nothing wrong with Yaletown.

I know plenty about Yaletown, having owned there and escaped. Parks are not the same street greenery, which was what the poster questioned in the London photo.

As to the Madrid example thrown up, building midrise now versus centuries old midrise is quite different. As casper points out, there are a whole whack of other housing types council could explore, instead they went with their default developer-pleasing highrise.

I get that it's Skyscraperpage and there'll be plenty of fanboys for anything tall and pointy, but barfing up a 45 story highrise in the midst of a lowrise/midrise neighbourhood is poor planning.

And that "public" park? It will end up being just another condo ammenity.

[vanman]

I know plenty about Yaletown, having owned there and escaped. Parks are not the same street greenery, which was what the poster questioned in the London photo.

I lived in Yaletown for almost 2 years as well. I didn't find the greenery there lacking. There are trees down almost every street, rooftop gardens, and a few beautiful parks. The seawall is only a 10 min walk and Stanley Park is only a 15 min ride away. Only the back alleys are completely devoid of nature.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by whatnext

[...]Parks are not the same street greenery, [...]

If parks are not considered contributors to street greenery, nor are juvenile street trees in front of recent downtown developments, or the hundreds of acres of open green space and landscaping along the seawall, then what it sounds like you are pining for are yards.

If yards are the measure of urban greenery then you are correct; a mixed-use development of any height or program is unlikely to yield as much ground-level private open green space as detached single family houses. It is a good thing, then, that the super-majority of the City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver will likely remain detached single family house neighbourhoods for centuries to come. What is changing are the land uses in the immediate vicinity of rapid transit stations, regional and municipal town centres (of which Oakridge is one), and along main urban arterials.

I am not defending the height of Oakridge. I have no affiliation with the project and would have not been at all surprised if lower heights had been conditions for Council's approval of the rezoning. What we've seen time and again is that height is singled out as the rallying point of opposition and yet there is no consensus of what an 'appropriate' height would be. And appropriate for whom? So low that the project would not pencil?

Would an appropriate height be that which would allow residents of nearby single family detached houses to not see the new development from their private indoor spaces? Is it a height that cannot be seen from street level on adjacent streets? How far away from the development should such rules apply? How would competing priorities that result in additional height be weighed?

[Bcasey25raptor]

I'd like to chime in that I am also opposed to this development. I am not against high rise development outside downtown but within reason.

These buildings are much too tall for the area they will be built in, the tallest towers should exceed no more than 20 stories with an average height of perhaps 10-15 stories.

I also think this area should only get mid rise developments under 250 feet if possible.

Think of the damage this will do for the views from Queen Elizabeth park.