General Vancouver Updates - Page 230

officedweller · #**4581** Posted **Nov 20, 2014, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Lowrise for Main & 4th:

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2014/08/15/69-unit-building-proposed-for-main-and-4th/

This is the 4th Ave facade:

http://www.vancouvermarket.ca/2014/08/15/69-unit-building-proposed-for-main-and-4th/

A pic of the model of this project from Changing City Updates:

http://changingcitybook.com/2014/11/20/4th-and-main/

http://changingcitybook.com/2014/11/20/4th-and-main/

BodomReaper · #**4582** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 7:18 PM**

Very frustrating - for how much longer are we going to keep wasting sites at the intersection of key arterials with densities found on Port Coquitlam side streets? No reason why an intersection like Main and 4th can't handle an Olympic Village-style 10 floor midrise without overwhelming the surroundings.

vanciti · #**4583** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Very frustrating - for how much longer are we going to keep wasting sites at the intersection of key arterials with densities found on Port Coquitlam side streets? No reason why an intersection like Main and 4th can't handle an Olympic Village-style 10 floor midrise without overwhelming the surroundings.

At a 3 FSR the site has almost the same density as Olympic Village. The biggest problem we have in this city, is we rely so heavily on FSR as the end all be all to determining density on a site. FSR is such a crude tool to measure what is appropriate or can go on a site. An example, I was recently looking at a property that has a 5 FSR, but a height limit of 75 feet in the downtown core. Or another property that has a 7 FSR and a height of 299 feet...We need to start looking at density in growth with tools that do not involve FSR and more involve heights, fit, finish and design. Otherwise Vancouver will continued to be littered with 4 and 5 story buildings that are better suited for the Burbs.

BodomReaper · #**4584** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanciti

At a 3 FSR the site has almost the same density as Olympic Village. The biggest problem we have in this city, is we rely so heavily on FSR as the end all be all to determining density on a site. FSR is such a crude tool to measure what is appropriate or can go on a site. An example, I was recently looking at a property that has a 5 FSR, but a height limit of 75 feet in the downtown core. Or another property that has a 7 FSR and a height of 299 feet...We need to start looking at density in growth with tools that do not involve FSR and more involve heights, fit, finish and design. Otherwise Vancouver will continued to be littered with 4 and 5 story buildings that are better suited for the Burbs.

This is exactly one of the thesis ideas I'm kicking around for grad school (though it might have been done already) - designing a regulatory framework that regulates the negative externalities of density rather than density itself. Unless one prescribes to the anti-urban view that population itself is a negative needing to be controlled, I see no reason to impose FSR caps when setbacks, shadowing, parking etc. can all be held to appropriate standards directly and quantitatively.

SFUVancouver · #**4585** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 8:44 PM**

^ That's effectively a form-based code and it has a whole lot of positive advantages to it.

Regarding the proposed building at Main and 4th, it's Main and 2nd that's the main intersection. I think a handsome 5 storey building will do just fine there, especially when one considers the slope of the hill.

logan5 · #**4586** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 8:55 PM**

Even with the useless generic retail at street level, it'll be nice to see the gap between mt pleasant and the dtes developed. I don't recall the mt pleasant ocp mentioning allowable density for main st but I thought there was at least 6 stories allowed which could accomodate a bit more density than 3 fsr. Imo for this location 5 fsr is more appropriate.

vanciti · #**4587** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Even with the useless generic retail at street level, it'll be nice to see the gap between mt pleasant and the dtes developed. I don't recall the mt pleasant ocp mentioning allowable density for main st but I thought there was at least 6 stories allowed which could accomodate a bit more density than 3 fsr. Imo for this location 5 fsr is more appropriate.

There are blocks in lower main that do allow a 5 FSR. Again, if you do it right FSR is a moot point. There is a common complaint about lack of design etc in this city. How do you expect to design anything that is short, squat and fat built right to the property lines. Allow heights, setbacks, design principals, you'll get a pretty nifty looking city.

logan5 · #**4588** Posted **Nov 21, 2014, 10:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanciti

There are blocks in lower main that do allow a 5 FSR. Again, if you do it right FSR is a moot point. There is a common complaint about lack of design etc in this city. How do you expect to design anything that is short, squat and fat built right to the property lines. Allow heights, setbacks, design principals, you'll get a pretty nifty looking city.

I suppose you are right. Height works in conjunction with density but for larger projects I think you need an fsr. Anyways I lile knowing how much sq footage each development is allowed.

vanciti · #**4589** Posted **Nov 24, 2014, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

I suppose you are right. Height works in conjunction with density but for larger projects I think you need an fsr. Anyways I lile knowing how much sq footage each development is allowed.

How do you figure? Olympic Village is a larger project where FSR stifled what could have been more. We have a table top of buildings over the entire site because FSR stifled. If the heights had been up and down, with setbacks I think we would have had a better village.

Don't get me wrong, I think Olympic Village is fantastic, I just think we lost opportunity because of the FSR number.

A downtown building with a height allowance of 299' (with conditional height to 499') but an FSR of 7. When a developer goes to rezone it, the public lose their cheerios over the FSR being 20, but at 20 the proposed tower barely hits the allowable height limit. When the public loses their cheerios it makes the rezoning process longer, which costs a developer more money, which in turn can either sink projects or causes the price of the end units/rent rates to go up.

I maintain FSR is the devil when it comes to building height and getting away from the table top concept that is so often discussed on this forum.

Vanelevatorman · #**4590** Posted **Nov 24, 2014, 7:49 PM**

Off topic I know but I like the "lose their cheerios" lol

Vin · #**4591** Posted **Nov 24, 2014, 8:07 PM**

Ideally, if the City of Vancouver really wants to go green, then downtown, West Broadway/Cambie/north Main corridors, Olympic Village should go really tall, like 40-80 stories tall, not a wall or table-topped bunch of buildings of course, but with setbacks and distance between the towers. These towers would be built on grand podiums with hanging gardens and plenty of sun spots, offering services from retail spaces to restaurants. Along the major roads criss-crossing these towers would be trams and underground trains that serve the masses.

Also ideally, people and businesses would be rehoused in these structures from low density areas and these properties repurchased by the state/city and converted to green lungs/parklands/agricultural lands. Vancouver can become a city with nodes of really tall towers but surrounded by lots of green space. I think certain neighbourhoods of Burnaby are quite successful in meeting this ideal, like the Edmonds neighbourhood, but being planned as only residential, lack the kind of city buzz and convenience one would like to see.

The current FSR or other viewcone requirements of Vancouver will never ever make this city green or alleviate housing shortage problems. The city would only succeed in a sprawl, except that instead of having single housing neighbourhoods, it would be filled with 5-storeyed wooden shacks that age badly throughout the suburbs. And in 20 years' time, those shacks will look exactly like the neighbourhood immediately south of Metrotown station, or many parts of ugly West End.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**4592** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 8:13 AM**

does anyone else find the streets of olympic village kind of enclosed? when i have walked around there the buildings seemed close to me. i don't know, it just didn't feel very open to me.

officedweller · #**4593** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 9:46 AM**

Yeah, it's a bit claustrophobic on some of the east-west streets that are about the width of lanes.

Jebby · #**4594** Posted **Nov 25, 2014, 9:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

does anyone else find the streets of olympic village kind of enclosed? when i have walked around there the buildings seemed close to me. i don't know, it just didn't feel very open to me.

I love that feeling. It happens often in Europe and feels very urban.