Downtown Vancouver Updates

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

I wonder who's the fanatic here.

Adding more floors to the Denman retail WILL reduce rental rates, and I don't have to convince a fanatic follower like yourself. There are people like the NIMBYs on Commercial Drive, or viewcone sheep that I just don't have to waste my time on.

You sir would be the fanatic given your extremely biased opinions towards tall towers and multi-level retail. The owner will charge at the prevailing market rates for retail units regardless any cost efficiencies (or inefficiencies) attained from additional floors. Are you so blinded from your obsession that you can't understand basic theories of capitalism?

p.s. In your previous post, you're the one who dragged me back into this topic in rather pitiful attempt to justify yourself. So much for not needing to convince or waste your time me... as well as being on your 'ignore list'. Can you at least keep your stories straight? Apparently words are cheap to you

[domusile]

Originally Posted by Vin

I wonder who's the fanatic here.

Adding more floors to the Denman retail WILL reduce rental rates, and I don't have to convince a fanatic follower like yourself. There are people like the NIMBYs on Commercial Drive, or viewcone sheep that I just don't have to waste my time on.

"The history of the development is even more complex – the same owner initially successfully rezoned the site to allow residential uses on four upper floors, but then dropped that version of the project."

http://changingcitybook.com/2016/02/27/1015-denman-street/

[NewWester]

@Prometheus

Look, no amount of spamming with pictures or calling me a hypocrite repeatedly is going to change my opinion. I am not opposed to beefing up the safety rails on bridges, and if it's done conscientiously, I don't think it is that big a deal.

But while we are here... I am a hypocrite because I watch television and am not opposed to taller guard rails on a bridge? Because I don't mind taller safety rails I want to ban snowboarding? These are extremely silly arguments. And like, I can't tell if you genuinely believe them or if this just an attempt into berating me into going away so you can feel like you won something. This kind of rhetorical strategy makes you a very unpleasant person to try and have a civil discussion with.

(But you found me out! I am clearly a crypto-ascetic here to ban all joy by appealing to safety concerns. And I would have gotten away with it too...)

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

You sir would be the fanatic given your extremely biased opinions towards tall towers and multi-level retail. The owner will charge at the prevailing market rates for retail units regardless any cost efficiencies (or inefficiencies) attained from additional floors. Are you so blinded from your obsession that you can't understand basic theories of capitalism?

p.s. In your previous post, you're the one who dragged me back into this topic in rather pitiful attempt to justify yourself. So much for not needing to convince or waste your time me... as well as being on your 'ignore list'. Can you at least keep your stories straight? Apparently words are cheap to you

I'm not biased, I'm just saying we don't have enough high-rises and indoor malls in Vancouver, when obviously there are a lot of areas destined for low rises and street retail. Just look around, the latter are found everywhere! Just for you info, your version of capitalism is not working in North America, just look at Detroit. Your "basic theories" are therefore squat, so don't preach me that crap. You, Squeezied, are the one who is obsessed.

As for the Denman site, I already gave a suggestion as to how the owners can lower their rental rates, when they've earned enough profits from selling more strata units above should the building go taller. If they are greedy and refuse to lower CRU rentals, the City can always step in by making the developer introduce the concept of cheaper business rents as a City contribution, and enforce it just like how they deal with subsidised housing. You obviously ignored that part.

Yeah you used to be on my ignore list, but obviously you wouldn't shut up and kept commenting on my postings. I put you back on as I love a little challenge. By that, I am not "keeping my stories straight"? All the hyperboles just to bury me, how pathetic.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by domusile

"The history of the development is even more complex – the same owner initially successfully rezoned the site to allow residential uses on four upper floors, but then dropped that version of the project."

http://changingcitybook.com/2016/02/27/1015-denman-street/

It used to have fully-occupied businesses, so why would the owners spend more money to demolish it and then rebuild one to one-and-a-half storey structure that would sit empty? Obviously there is more to this. The article never said when the successful rezoning was done, nor that new bylaws now (after the new Westend OCP) would make it harder for the structure to go taller? Fact is, no one is renting those units.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm not biased, I'm just saying we don't have enough high-rises and indoor malls in Vancouver

There are already too many indoor malls. Malls suck, they destroy street life. I wish we'd have more retail promenades and high streets. It would have been amazing to have a continuous retail/restaurant/bar strip along False Creek from Yaletown all the way to Granville Island.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Jebby

There are already too many indoor malls. Malls suck, they destroy street life. I wish we'd have more retail promenades and high streets. It would have been amazing to have a continuous retail/restaurant/bar strip along False Creek from Yaletown all the way to Granville Island.

Yup, I do respect your opinion, although you must also know that Pacific Centre isn't really destroying streetlife, neither is the downtown Bay or Nordstrom (Granville side), or Eaton Centre in Toronto or Victoria. It really depends on how they are designed and how they interact with the streets. There are many other examples around the world where malls actually enhance street life. It's not a one glove fits all kind of concept that has to be applied here.

City of Vancouver, particularly downtown alone does not have a lot of indoor malls, to say otherwise is an exaggeration.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yup, I do respect your opinion, although you must also know that Pacific Centre isn't really destroying streetlife,

Of course it does. It takes people away from the street and into a mostly underground mall.

Originally Posted by Vin

neither is the downtown Bay or

That's not a mall, it's a department store.

Originally Posted by Vin

Nordstrom (Granville side),

The building certainly hurts street life, especially on the Howe Street side. Compare that to a retail street like Robson and you'll see what I mean. Huge monolithic buildings destroy street life.

Originally Posted by Vin

or Eaton Centre in Toronto or Victoria.

Never been.

Originally Posted by Vin

It really depends on how they are designed and how they interact with the streets. There are many other examples around the world where malls actually enhance street life. It's not a one glove fits all kind of concept that has to be applied here.

Can you give me some examples?

[Rocketeer]

I noticed that a Vancouver Sun article posted a render of Burrard Bridge with the new suicide fencing - does anyone know if the below rendering is an updated one? I haven't seen this render before, and the fencing looks somewhat better than the original renders.

[NewWester]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Never been.


Can you give me some examples?

Eaton Centre and Dundas Square in general is the pits. It's why I always cringe whenever anyone is like, let's make a Time Square knock off in Vancouver. Queen Street and like, Kennsington Market are much better experiences IMO.

[csbvan]

I don't like the idea of suicide fences, but since they are happening I hope that is an accurate depiction as it wouldn't be too intrusive for views and fits well with the heritage architecture.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by NewWester

Look, no amount of spamming with pictures or calling me a hypocrite repeatedly is going to change my opinion.

And apparently no amount of scientific studies which fail to show any effectiveness of suicide fences in reducing the overall suicide rate in a metro area. In that sense, you are the consumate politician: plowing ahead with your multi-million dollar favoured program in the absence of any scientific evidence it will achieve its intended objective.

The Memorial Bridge (Augusta, Maine) study; the Golden Gate Bridge (San Francisco) study; the Jacque Cartier Bridge (Montreal study): they all showed that suicide fences were effective in eliminating suicides at the bridges where they were installed (without a corresponding increase in suicides at other bridges), but they all failed to show that the suicide fences caused a reduction in the overall suicide rate in the metro area. The overall suicide rate in the metro area held steady or in some cases even increased.

But one of the most recent scientific studies, published by the British Medical Journal, which studied the effect of installing a suicide fence on what used to be the second most deadly suicide bridge in North America, actually contradicted the only interesting (but ultimately meaningless) finding of those other studies: that individuals prevented from committing suicide at one bridge do not look for other bridges. They do.

And, of course, it also confirmed the only meaningful finding of the other studies: that the installation of suicide fences do not lower the overall rate of suicide.

Suicide barrier on Bloor Viaduct worked, but jumpers went elsewhere: study

Anna Mehler Paperny
Toronto — The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010 7:32PM EDT

A state-of-the-art suicide barrier built to prevent people from jumping to their deaths on the second most deadly suicide bridge in North America has been 100-per-cent successful in its mission.

In some ways, it has also been a failure, according to a new study.

The Bloor Viaduct suicide barrier, a $6-million feat of engineering that managed to marry heritage preservation and life preservation, has eliminated suicides from a bridge that became notorious for them.

But it hasn't stopped people from jumping to their death: They're just using other locations.

A study to be published in the British Medical Journal Wednesday found that although the barrier stopped people from jumping from the Bloor Viaduct, it didn't lower rates of suicide overall, and it didn't lower the number of suicides by jumping.

"This is the first study to show that when a barrier was put on one bridge, there was an increase in suicides on other bridges in the city," said Mark Sinyor, a resident psychiatrist at Sunnybrook health centre and one of the study's two authors...


Keith Noble figures the Bloor Viaduct [suicide fence] gave his cousin Donald an extra 10 minutes.

That's about how long it took for Donald Noble to take the bus from the viaduct to Leaside Bridge. He got off, "walked over to the railing and went over" - within view of the bus driver who dropped him off.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...ers-went-elsewhere-study/article1386704/

[jollyburger]

It will be interesting to see what happens if they can't install suicide barriers or netting on the Lions Gate.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Of course it does. It takes people away from the street and into a mostly underground mall.

That's not a mall, it's a department store.

The building certainly hurts street life, especially on the Howe Street side. Compare that to a retail street like Robson and you'll see what I mean. Huge monolithic buildings destroy street life.

Never been.

Can you give me some examples?

Mall, department store, same thing with regards to indoor retail concept.
Downtown's PC brings more people to the streets around the mall, and contrary to your claim, it does not hurt street life, but enhances it. I see no difference if malls are designed to also include street level retail and entrances. I don't see how it differs from pure street retail, which is actually not doing well in many other parts. Since this is the Downtown thread and not retail thread, I will not discuss more here.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by Rocketeer

I noticed that a Vancouver Sun article posted a render of Burrard Bridge with the new suicide fencing - does anyone know if the below rendering is an updated one? I haven't seen this render before, and the fencing looks somewhat better than the original renders.

If that picture is to believed, and is even close to scale. I cant see how thats gonna stop a thing. Grab the fence step onto railing. Grab top of fence, step onto top of fence and.... or maybe they want to take their time and hang out for a bit. Well good thing there is that nice concrete post with the light on top. One could easly mount the fence then just hang out next to the post until deciding what to do next.

I guess its probably more likely the actual installation will be much much taller then what is shown here. In my opinion this would only stop a morbidly obese person, at least how its represented in the picture shown.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by NewWester

These are extremely silly arguments. And like, I can't tell if you genuinely believe them or if this just an attempt into berating me into going away so you can feel like you won something. This kind of rhetorical strategy makes you a very unpleasant person to try and have a civil discussion with.

#truth

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by NewWester

@Prometheus

This kind of rhetorical strategy makes you a very unpleasant person to try and have a civil discussion with.

Says he whose very first contribution to the discussion was to falsely characterize those who merely disagreed with the suicide fence as:

Originally Posted by NewWester

trying to organize a torch bearing mob.

Now, you did apologize for your ridiculous and absolutely baseless smear (after you were called out for it) and I accepted it. So, we will leave it at that. But those who live in glass houses...

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Rocketeer

I noticed that a Vancouver Sun article posted a render of Burrard Bridge with the new suicide fencing - does anyone know if the below rendering is an updated one? I haven't seen this render before, and the fencing looks somewhat better than the original renders.

Must be the final design since it's on their project page.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Rocketeer

does anyone know if the below rendering is an updated one? I haven't seen this render before, and the fencing looks somewhat better than the original renders.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

yes, those are the updated ones. the originals were bulkier, didnt have the historic lamp posts, and were less ornate.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm not biased, I'm just saying we don't have enough high-rises and indoor malls in Vancouver, when obviously there are a lot of areas destined for low rises and street retail. Just look around, the latter are found everywhere!

No you are extremely biased, taking any remote opportunity to bash Vancouver for not fitting into your narrow-minded ideals. How many times have you said anything positive about low- or mid-rises?

Just for you info, your version of capitalism is not working in North America, just look at Detroit. Your "basic theories" are therefore squat, so don't preach me that crap.

What in the world are you talking about? Can you at least try to give a coherent explanation? Or do you just assume people are able to follow your convoluted logic?

You, Squeezied, are the one who is obsessed.

About? Giving you a dose of reality?

As for the Denman site, I already gave a suggestion as to how the owners can lower their rental rates, when they've earned enough profits from selling more strata units above should the building go taller. If they are greedy and refuse to lower CRU rentals, the City can always step in by making the developer introduce the concept of cheaper business rents as a City contribution, and enforce it just like how they deal with subsidised housing. You obviously ignored that part.

Your logic was making my head hurt and I decided it was best not responding to deluded far fetched ideas not grounded in reality, but I suppose you've now dragged me in. Where do you come up with wacky ideas? Do you honestly believe that's a realistic solution? Give me an example where a municipality has successfully enforced a private owner to subsidize their retail rental rates. Who is eligible for subsidize retail? How long does the City get to mandate the rental rates? Great idea... but how about come down to reality?

When a development is being rezoned, the applicant contributes to the municipality prior to development approval, a process that is negotiated(for CACs) and agreed between the two. You somehow think that after the development is completed the City can willy nilly come along and force the developer to contribute more in the form of reduced rental rates however they see fit?

The developer will charge retail at the prevailing and competitive free-market rate. That's not "my version" of capitalism, that's capitalism capitalism. It doesn't matter whether they made a killing selling 60 floors of luxury units above or not. The developer will charge whatever they think they can charge. The fact that the Denman retail isn't leasing well isn't due to the fact it's only two stories.

My head hurts. Do you see why I ignored you in the first place?

Yeah you used to be on my ignore list, but obviously you wouldn't shut up and kept commenting on my postings. I put you back on as I love a little challenge. By that, I am not "keeping my stories straight"? All the hyperboles just to bury me, how pathetic.

Ouch... looks like I hit a nerve. I love a challenge too, at least I don't talk with clouded emotions. Strange that you're accusing me of hyperboles, I guess you weren't serious about...

I don't have to convince a fanatic follower like yourself. There are people like the NIMBYs on Commercial Drive, or viewcone sheep that I just don't have to waste my time on.

Apparently you do. You're quite entertaining.