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

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why? You're entitled to your opinion obviously but why? Why do you think they are too tall?

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.

What views towards what? Oakridge is behind Queen Elizabeth Park with respect to the mountain views that everyone in Vancouver is so militant about. So the development will be to everyone's backs. If you mean from Queen E there should be no towers in view, then they had better start demolishing Downtown Vancouver.

So again what view is being damaged? I'm just confused is all.

[GMasterAres]

For my opinion on the project and it is not a very important opinion since I neither live near Oakridge or in Vancouver, but I think the project looks pretty good from a project perspective.

1. On traffic, the traffic around that area isn't too bad. You also have SkyTrain and people in the area can't have their cake and eat it too. We constantly get harped on out here in Surrey for wanting more rapid transit by people in Vancouver for not densifying around SkyTrain.

We get told "You will only get RRT when you build 92392392 towers around each SkyTrain station." Then people around Oakridge, Marine Drive, etc. get a SkyTrain and a bunch are dead set against high rises. Makes me cringe. That should be the price you pay in a neighborhood for getting SkyTrain through imo.

2. I think Vancouver actually does a fairly poor job of density and height transitions. I do agree with the point that more transitionary density would make neighborhood look more seamless. Go up and down the Cambie corridor and you have 1 stretch of low rise then the next block is all SFH. And in many other areas of Vancouver is it:

SFH SFH HIGHRISE Blamo. No real transition. In Oakridge though, the mall is the center of the area so I can see them wanting to densify before the rest comes, but I can see the thoughts where it is just houses houses them blamo 45 storey towers. It looks kind of funny.

Then again, that does seem to be the Metro-Vancouver way, not just the Vancouver way. We have more high rises per capita than most other major cities around the world.

3. Single Family Homes in Vancouver. Welcome to the big leagues folks of Vancouver. You name most other major cities that often get sighted for being medium density havens, and you ignore the fact they have _0_ single family homes anywhere within the core city which is spread out quite a bit more.

In London for example, if you overlay it on top of Vancouver itself, you'd first start seeing single family homes around Marine Drive and on the border of Burnaby. Everything in what is "Vancouver" would be medium density buildings or stacked row houses that are really just buildings with no back yards.

So from a Metro-Vancouver perspective, there would be almost no single family homes in Vancouver itself at all if you want to design the city like London, Madrid, Paris, etc. Everyone who would want a single family home would live out in the "suburbs." So again it is kind of a want your cake and eat it. People want to keep their 3 floor home with back yard and front porch and at the same time keep that home 2 blocks from SkyTrain and 5 minutes from Downtown.

That just isn't feasible as a city grows and every other major city around the World is proof of that. Land prices and density requirements simply don't permit. In 15 years time your average SFH in Vancouver will be $2 million or more when the same sized home with same land would be far less out in the suburbs.

I was looking at some homes near Oakridge a few years ago just to get examples. It would have cost me $1.5 million to buy a decent 1600 square foot home on an ok piece of lane with a back yard and laneway garage. That same $1.5 million would buy me a 3200 square foot home with a 3 car garage perched on the hill side overlooking White Rock beach and the bay (unobstructed view) in South Surrey.

It just makes no sense to spend that same amount of money and get far less in my eyes and more people see it my way. Those living in Vancouver now are either old generation meaning they have owned their homes for 30-50 years and bought them when they were affordable, or they are wealthy. In 15 years from now your average middle class family with 2 kids raising their children in a single family home in Vancouver will be extinct. Instead they will all be in Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta, Surrey, Langley, and Richmond. Heck more people are moving to Maple Ridge every day too.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by jhausner

For my opinion on the project and it is not a very important opinion since I neither live near Oakridge or in Vancouver, but I think the project looks pretty good from a project perspective.

1. On traffic, the traffic around that area isn't too bad. You also have SkyTrain and people in the area can't have their cake and eat it too. We constantly get harped on out here in Surrey for wanting more rapid transit by people in Vancouver for not densifying around SkyTrain.

We get told "You will only get RRT when you build 92392392 towers around each SkyTrain station." Then people around Oakridge, Marine Drive, etc. get a SkyTrain and a bunch are dead set against high rises. Makes me cringe. That should be the price you pay in a neighborhood for getting SkyTrain through imo.

2. I think Vancouver actually does a fairly poor job of density and height transitions. I do agree with the point that more transitionary density would make neighborhood look more seamless. Go up and down the Cambie corridor and you have 1 stretch of low rise then the next block is all SFH. And in many other areas of Vancouver is it:

SFH SFH HIGHRISE Blamo. No real transition. In Oakridge though, the mall is the center of the area so I can see them wanting to densify before the rest comes, but I can see the thoughts where it is just houses houses them blamo 45 storey towers. It looks kind of funny.

Then again, that does seem to be the Metro-Vancouver way, not just the Vancouver way. We have more high rises per capita than most other major cities around the world.

3. Single Family Homes in Vancouver. Welcome to the big leagues folks of Vancouver. You name most other major cities that often get sighted for being medium density havens, and you ignore the fact they have _0_ single family homes anywhere within the core city which is spread out quite a bit more.

In London for example, if you overlay it on top of Vancouver itself, you'd first start seeing single family homes around Marine Drive and on the border of Burnaby. Everything in what is "Vancouver" would be medium density buildings or stacked row houses that are really just buildings with no back yards.

So from a Metro-Vancouver perspective, there would be almost no single family homes in Vancouver itself at all if you want to design the city like London, Madrid, Paris, etc. Everyone who would want a single family home would live out in the "suburbs." So again it is kind of a want your cake and eat it. People want to keep their 3 floor home with back yard and front porch and at the same time keep that home 2 blocks from SkyTrain and 5 minutes from Downtown.

That just isn't feasible as a city grows and every other major city around the World is proof of that. Land prices and density requirements simply don't permit. In 15 years time your average SFH in Vancouver will be $2 million or more when the same sized home with same land would be far less out in the suburbs.

I was looking at some homes near Oakridge a few years ago just to get examples. It would have cost me $1.5 million to buy a decent 1600 square foot home on an ok piece of lane with a back yard and laneway garage. That same $1.5 million would buy me a 3200 square foot home with a 3 car garage perched on the hill side overlooking White Rock beach and the bay (unobstructed view) in South Surrey.

It just makes no sense to spend that same amount of money and get far less in my eyes and more people see it my way. Those living in Vancouver now are either old generation meaning they have owned their homes for 30-50 years and bought them when they were affordable, or they are wealthy. In 15 years from now your average middle class family with 2 kids raising their children in a single family home in Vancouver will be extinct. Instead they will all be in Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta, Surrey, Langley, and Richmond. Heck more people are moving to Maple Ridge every day too.

Well put, that's how I feel too. While I think in the future (very distant future) we will see mostly rowhouses all over Vancouver proper instead of SFH, that day is far away, and Oakridge is a logical spot for a "climax" if you will of density.

By the way Cambie street is slowly being redevelopped with mid rise apartments so Oakridge won't look as awkwar when it's finished as it would were it ready now

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why average height of 15?where did that come from? Lol also the area adjacent is slated for redevelopment so it's not like these towers are going to be in the middle of a sea sfh forever. And I don't understand how the view from qep is damaged

[officedweller]

I also think that Oakridge is being developed very tall because City Council does not want to fight the "big" fight of rezoning an entire district of single family houses to midrise or highrise development - the Cambie plan is really just densifying along arterial streets, not the areas behind.

It's an opportunistic development - taking advanatge of a historically consolidated parcel to build dense. That avoids the fight between residents and City Hall about developers buying huge swaths of single family houses to consoidate for other large projects (although there have been a number of consolidations on Cambie itself).

[jlousa]

This might come as a surprise to some as I am supportive of this project but I agree with the commentary about the height being too much for this location. I think the density is pretty close to where it should be at 3.8, I think the site being what it is could've even handled about another 10% say ~4.2. I would've preferred heights in the 20-25flr range as well, but on top of bulkier podiums. I think the mix proposed is spot on, just the form wouldn't be my first choice. The heights at Joyce St work w/o having to go to 40+flrs, it also happens to be the densest census tract in Vancouver.

[officedweller]

I think a lot of it results from the need to preserve open space below the towers for the retail space in the mall.
Having more towers means space that is more chopped up by elevator cores - akin to the absence of large open space retail units in downtown Vnacouver.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by 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.

I am also curious as to what views will be damaged? As the development is not between the park and the precious, precious mountains. Is there something else to be damaged in that direction? The sky perhaps?

[ozonemania]

I can understand alot of the knee jerk reaction to this development. It reminds me of a SimCity ploppable. (i.e. hey! let's plop a high density commercial/residential here!) It does contrast with the surrounding area.

But I like it. The height doesn't bother me. I don't think it will look out of place at all 10, 20 years down the road. It's not too tall. I really find the sea of SFH more disturbing than the Oakridge development to be honest.

The City of Vancouver has far less variety of housing choices than many cities. You choose between a SFH or a point tower condo, basically. There's a dearth of in-between in terms of row houses, high-density mid-rises, etc. It's changing, but so slowly!

I'm hoping that this Oakridge development if anything will help CoV residents wean off old ideas of the supremacy of SFH, and density only being acceptable in the downtown core. I'm not anti-SFH at all, but I think different housing choices is the way we have to go. It goes without saying that many will always prefer a SFH, but if you create a variety and choice of different types of housing, each having its own attractions and benefits, you can create a more stable, happy and even perhaps more affordable housing market.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jhausner

...3. Single Family Homes in Vancouver. Welcome to the big leagues folks of Vancouver. You name most other major cities that often get sighted for being medium density havens, and you ignore the fact they have _0_ single family homes anywhere within the core city which is spread out quite a bit more...

Not true, you can go 1 mile out from Manhattan and find single family homes. They may be on either side of the river but they're still withing that distance.

Originally Posted by jhausner

...I was looking at some homes near Oakridge a few years ago just to get examples. It would have cost me $1.5 million to buy a decent 1600 square foot home on an ok piece of lane with a back yard and laneway garage. That same $1.5 million would buy me a 3200 square foot home with a 3 car garage perched on the hill side overlooking White Rock beach and the bay (unobstructed view) in South Surrey...

And 15 years ago that Oakridge house would only have cost you $600k. It has appreciated far faster than inflation and wages due to external factors. One of which is land specualtion by those counting on Vision Vancouver to upzone properties near the Canada Line.

Originally Posted by jhausner

..It just makes no sense to spend that same amount of money and get far less in my eyes and more people see it my way. Those living in Vancouver now are either old generation meaning they have owned their homes for 30-50 years and bought them when they were affordable, or they are wealthy. In 15 years from now your average middle class family with 2 kids raising their children in a single family home in Vancouver will be extinct. Instead they will all be in Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta, Surrey, Langley, and Richmond. Heck more people are moving to Maple Ridge every day too.

And that's called suburban sprawl, which sends many hear into hissy fits. Taking families out of the population mix in Vancouver is not a good or desirable thing.

[whatnext]

[IMG][/IMG]

From @derrickokeefe

Some fun memes here:
http://www.straight.com/blogra/608901/25klunch-memes-make-mockery-gregor-robertsons-private-meeting

[logan5]

It's hard to imagine you have an objective view on projects like Oakridge when you're posting this type of propaganda.

[Genauso]

What determines a good development is if it brings people in to itself and it's neighborhood. There wasn't much chance they would build something so big it would never fill up and the perception or expense would keep people away. Nor would it be too successful and outpace the ability to handle more traffic in the area.

If people really don't like the change because of lights, noise, crowds, traffic, ... They should be able to sell for a gain to a developer who will build something bigger on their land...

But it would have been better for everyone if more intermediate projects preceded the Oakridge redevelopment in the 6 decades since it was built.

I'm hesitant about the proposed parking, especially if the Canada Line P3 goes slow in matching demand with service to boost profits, but we will see.

[subdude]

Originally Posted by whatnext

[IMG][/IMG]

From @derrickokeefe

Some fun memes here:
http://www.straight.com/blogra/608901/25klunch-memes-make-mockery-gregor-robertsons-private-meeting

Catchy, where can I buy the t-shirt

[red-paladin]

We need to stay on topic.

[Genauso]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

We need to stay on topic.

When is the first phase or tower approval process going to happen?

The one upside of getting a huge, relative to the neighbourhood, project through is that it will lead a wave of change.

There are already projects that are underway next to Oakridge, that I believe broke ground after this redevelopment zoning was announced. There was also the Safeway redevelopment in Marpole at Granville&70th, which is impressively large in person. If opposition didn't stop those, every project smaller than them has a much smoother road to travel.

What's next? Will the old bus depot near Oak&41st wait until after Oakridge completes, or does it all happen at the same time?

What option makes the construction and marketing easier?

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

I am also curious as to what views will be damaged? As the development is not between the park and the precious, precious mountains. Is there something else to be damaged in that direction? The sky perhaps?

I found a few renders from Van city buzz which caught my eye.
http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/03/oakridge-centre-redevelopment-approved/

Thats the view from QE park, al things considered this is only a render but I have looked from this area and there are a lot of things to look at, sometimes blue sky and endless horizons can be good for a city which sees relentless rain.

Lastly, yes these are much too tall, I'm not going to put up a fuss over this because I don't live in this neighbourhood but the reality is these are still way to tall for the area they are in.

It almost feels like to me that Vancouver is trying to make a second downtown in the city of Vancouver and that makes me feel a little un easy.

Of course all of this is only an opinion and we all have a right to such an opinion. Personally I feel these buildings should be at least 20% social housing or subsidized housing and rental stock MUST be expanded, whether thats done through town homes or high rises I don't care.

Again this development is too high, 20 stores would work, look at joyce and those buildings and thats what I'd be ok with in this area.

[osirisboy]

Now I personally think that view looks great

And as if this area will be anything like a second downtown lol. And even if that was going to happen why does that make you feel uneasy? Relax!

[spm2013]

^^ Don't worry all the trees in QE Park will eliminate any view of buildings or mountains in a few years.

[TwoFace]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Personally I feel these buildings should be at least 20% social housing or subsidized housing and rental stock MUST be expanded, whether thats done through town homes or high rises I don't care.

Again this development is too high, 20 stores would work, look at joyce and those buildings and thats what I'd be ok with in this area.

The height allowed is almost a pi**ing contest with Burnaby whose Brentwood Mall redevelopment will have some pretty high towers.

Also you should know that about 50% +/- of ALL new condos go directly into rental stock, and in almost all cases are subsidized by the owners