Suburban Updates - All Other Metro Vancouver Municipalities - Page 144

GlassCity · #**2861** Posted **Sep 15, 2014, 11:55 PM**

Thanks for the fantastic update! I grew up in Richmond, and I feel like it doesn't get any love on here. I know the towers are all short, but there's an insane amount of them that have gone up.

BodomReaper · #**2862** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 2:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

Quintet #3 by urbancanadian, on Flickr

Quintent looks absolutely monstrous - in the best possible way. Very striking project, as is Bravo (both designed by the same architecture firm, W.T. Leung.) Thanks for the fantastic update!

As an aside urbancandian, I'm not sure if this is intentional on your part (my apologies if so) but all your photos except one are set to private - meaning we can't click through to their main page to salivate at higher resolutions. This can be changed in the account Privacy & Permissions tab if you're so inclined. Massive thank-youin any case

hollywoodnorth · #**2863** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 2:46 AM**

great update thanks!

memememe76 · #**2864** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 2:56 AM**

Over the summer, I have done a few of my long runs along the Richmond dykes, between Steveston and the UBC Yacht Club (a couple blocks from Aberdeen Station). Those condo developments in River Park are really nice in person, and Richmond has a really nice path along the water.

My only concern is access from those condo developments to the main business centre along No. 3 Road. It's a bit of a pain in terms of walking, and I never noticed much in the way of bus service.

officedweller · #**2865** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 4:09 AM**

From CKNW:

Quote:

New West takes a pass on Whitecaps proposal

Vancouver, BC, Canada / (CKNW AM) AM980
Shane Woodford

September 15, 2014 08:44 pm

After taking a look at the bill the city of New Westminster has said no thanks to hosting the Whitecaps development team.

Councillor Jonathan Cote says the city would have been on the hook for about 11-million-dollars in up front costs for the Queens Park field.

“The main reason the proposal didn’t work is the financial numbers just simply didn’t work. The total up front costs were going to be close to $11.4 million and unfortunately the city was not able to absorb those costs. The Whitecaps were not able to put money up front for the proposal and were only able to pay a small amount of rent to recoup some of those costs.”

...

http://www.cknw.com/2014/09/15/new-west-takes-a-pass-on-whitecaps-proposal/

Klazu · #**2866** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 4:41 AM**

Great update from Richmond! I was also in the area yesterday, but I would never have the patience to be taking photos of all those projects - great work!

I also took note that there is a lot going on in Richmond, but I cannot help but say that many of these projects do look alike. I like the high-quality materials on many of these, but they are just so... stubby.

How come are high-rises so no-no in Richmond, but Marine Gateway is fine so close to the landing path?

GlassCity · #**2867** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 4:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Great update from Richmond! I was also in the area yesterday, but I would never have the patience to be taking photos of all those projects - great work!

I also took note that there is a lot going on in Richmond, but I cannot help but say that many of these projects do look alike. I like the high-quality materials on many of these, but they are just so... stubby.

How come are high-rises so no-no in Richmond, but Marine Gateway is fine so close to the landing path?

From what I understand, it's to do with Richmond's lack of bedrock to dig into. These towers have to be supported by loose sand that's below sea level. I could be wrong though.

Klazu · #**2868** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 4:48 AM**

Does the bedrock then change already at Marine Gateway? Aren't Coal Harbour, Yaletown and False Creek also built (partly) on reclaimed land?

I guess it's a matter of where going to the extra lengths is financially viable, eh?

GlassCity · #**2869** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

Does the bedrock then change already at Marine Gateway? Aren't Coal Harbour, Yaletown and False Creek also built (partly) on reclaimed land?

I guess it's a matter of where going to the extra lengths is financially viable, eh?

I thought only Pacific Central Station and the adjacent railway yard was built on reclaimed land? Either way, I'm no expert. All I know growing up in Richmond is that we'd always talk about swimming over to Marine Drive if the Big One ever hit, because it's above sea level, whereas Richmond is below. Again, I know next to nothing on the subject so this is all speculation.

But you may be right. There's a lot more easily developable land even in downtown Richmond than Marine Drive.

trofirhen · #**2870** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 1:34 PM**

Perhaps the lower building heights in Richmond have something to do with being in the YVR runway flightpaths.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

VanK · #**2871** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 3:30 PM**

The only reason is the Richmond flight paths... The soil/sea-level issue only affects the underground parking situation (just need to build larger above ground parkades) You can only build higher in Richmond once YVR & the Feds allow it... which may happen slowly.

urbancanadian · #**2872** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 6:34 PM**

No problem, and thanks!!

I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually like the feel of downtown Richmond with every building being virtually the same height. Ironically, that's what makes it unique to me.

You could actually say that Richmond has TWO height limits - the one from it's proximity to the airport, but also one limiting it from building downward. Since developers can't build underground, they need to cram the parking garages in with everything else and still try to maximize their density within a certain height.

And they really hide the parkades well. I mean, the average person walking beside one of the newer developments would have no idea. Coquitlam could learn a thing or two from Richmond.

urbancanadian · #**2873** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Quintent looks absolutely monstrous - in the best possible way. Very striking project, as is Bravo (both designed by the same architecture firm, W.T. Leung.) Thanks for the fantastic update!

As an aside urbancandian, I'm not sure if this is intentional on your part (my apologies if so) but all your photos except one are set to private - meaning we can't click through to their main page to salivate at higher resolutions. This can be changed in the account Privacy & Permissions tab if you're so inclined. Massive thank-youin any case

Thanks, BodomReaper! I actually did purposely set my account to private. I'm kind of weird when it comes to these things. I will change it eventually, down the road...

Klazu · #**2874** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 7:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanK

The only reason is the Richmond flight paths... The soil/sea-level issue only affects the underground parking situation (just need to build larger above ground parkades) You can only build higher in Richmond once YVR & the Feds allow it... which may happen slowly.

I believe this is the case, but my original question stands: how is southern part of Richmond's downtown any different from Marine Gateway? Area around Brighouse is further away from the flight paths than Marine Gateway is...

officedweller · #**2875** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 8:06 PM**

Could be due to the flight path for the crosswind runway, not just the east-west north and south runways.

The south runway, is, of course, also farther south and closer to Richmond.

VanK · #**2876** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klazu

I believe this is the case, but my original question stands: how is southern part of Richmond's downtown any different from Marine Gateway? Area around Brighouse is further away from the flight paths than Marine Gateway is...

I am no aviation expert BUT I am fairly certain that the area around Brighouse is or at least was along the YVR flight path. I found this online:

http://www.yvr.ca/Libraries/ENV_Docs/Aircraft_Flight_Routings_-_Final.sflb.ashx

NewWester · #**2877** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 8:58 PM**

I think it mostly has to do with prevailing winds. Airplanes get more lift when flying into the wind, so it's generally best to takeoff against the wind and land with the wind. Since wind generally blows off of the ocean or, depending on conditions, towards the ocean, the approach and takeoff corridors (and runways) run in that direction. And why planes fly low over Richmond instead of say Marine Drive. So it's more about the physics of flight and the physical geography of the region than just arbitrary zoning rules.

You can see the airport (kind of) from my office, and it's fun to see the direction of takeoff and landing change on weird swirling wind days.

Zassk · #**2878** Posted **Sep 16, 2014, 9:41 PM**

There is also the seaplane facility on the middle arm of the Fraser, for which the planes fly directly over downtown Richmond when landing. This facility is quite busy on some days. The time a small plane crashed into a Richmond highrise several years ago, it was one of these seaplanes.

officedweller · #**2879** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 5:56 AM**

Maple Ridge is now a City:

http://www.mrtimes.com/news/maple-ridge-officially-becomes-a-city-1.1352025

libtard · #**2880** Posted **Sep 17, 2014, 6:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I thought only Pacific Central Station and the adjacent railway yard was built on reclaimed land? Either way, I'm no expert. All I know growing up in Richmond is that we'd always talk about swimming over to Marine Drive if the Big One ever hit, because it's above sea level, whereas Richmond is below. Again, I know next to nothing on the subject so this is all speculation.

But you may be right. There's a lot more easily developable land even in downtown Richmond than Marine Drive.

Richmond isn't below sea level, its 1 meter above on average