Northeast False Creek | Proposed

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

well those both had events going on so not exactly "every day" uses.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

well those both had events going on so not exactly "every day" uses.

LOL yep, that's the thing. There are tons of events going on during the summer in parks.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL yep, that's the thing. There are tons of events going on during the summer in parks.

Except that in those photos of yours, said events already have plenty of room. Again, by all means, expand the existing Creekside Park a little to connect with David Lam, and that'll be enough - build any future parks inland. The seawall's got enough green space that can be used a lot for a few sunny days in summer, and not enough retail/dining/entertainment space that can be used a lot all year.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL yep, that's the thing. There are tons of events going on during the summer in parks.

well that's good, we get a decent use out of the parks for 3 months of the year it doesn't rain. that's always good. why build something nice that we can use 12 months a year, when we can build something that's good 3 months a year!!! that's just great use of space of course!

i love tree and green space, but the majority of you are wayyyyy overstating how much use these parks get over the year. why is everyone so against doing something other then a square of grass? i don't understand it; there are so many great alternatives and few seem to want/comprehend them.

the people wanting all the squares of grass, are the exact same people who said the grass around the art gallery was always muddy and unusable. and yet it is the EXACT SAME THING!!! squares of grass.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except that in those photos of yours, said events already have plenty of room. Again, by all means, expand the existing Creekside Park a little to connect with David Lam, and that'll be enough - build any future parks inland. The seawall's got enough green space that can be used a lot for a few sunny days in summer, and not enough retail/dining/entertainment space that can be used a lot all year.

Creekside and David Lam are on opposite ends of False Creek...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

well that's good, we get a decent use out of the parks for 3 months of the year it doesn't rain. that's always good. why build something nice that we can use 12 months a year, when we can build something that's good 3 months a year!!! that's just great use of space of course!

Good call. Let's get rid of anything outdoors. Parks, beaches, ski hills, hiking trails, none of those can be used 12 months so they should all be re-purposed to build condos and malls.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Creekside and David Lam are on opposite ends of False Creek...

Mea culpa, I meant expand Creekside to Andy Livingstone - I always get the two mixed up for some reason...

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Good call. Let's get rid of anything outdoors. Parks, beaches, ski hills, hiking trails, none of those can be used 12 months so they should all be re-purposed to build condos and malls.

(sigh) Nobody wants to build over the existing parks. We're saying that we have enough parks as it is, and we should do something else with the rest of the seawall. Also worth noting is that the ski and hiking trails in question are outside of Vancouver, as opposed to right in the heart of the city.

San Francisco, New York, Singapore, London, Chicago, Paris, Amsterdam and cities all over the world have beautiful parks along their waterfront too, but they've also balanced the need for green spaces with the need for urban spaces: promenades, boardwalks, cafes, clubs, theatres, museums, cinemas, studios, you name it.
We do not have that balance; our seawall has more than enough green spaces, but not enough urban spaces, and the two vacant lots in question seem like the perfect spots to put them.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Mea culpa, I meant expand Creekside to Andy Livingstone - I always get the two mixed up for some reason...



(sigh) Nobody wants to build over the existing parks. We're saying that we have enough parks as it is, and we should do something else with the rest of the seawall. Also worth noting is that the ski and hiking trails in question are outside of Vancouver, as opposed to right in the heart of the city.

San Francisco, New York, Singapore, London, Chicago, Paris, Amsterdam and cities all over the world have beautiful parks along their waterfront too, but they've also balanced the need for green spaces with the need for urban spaces: promenades, boardwalks, cafes, clubs, theatres, museums, cinemas, studios, you name it.
We do not have that balance; our seawall has more than enough green spaces, but not enough urban spaces, and the two vacant lots in question seem like the perfect spots to put them.

I have no problem with other potential uses for the seawall space. I was merely responding to the false assertions that:

1. Parks today aren't busy
2. Vision's park board builds nothing but trees and grass
3. Since they aren't fully utilized 12 months/year they aren't worth having

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I have no problem with other potential uses for the seawall space. I was merely responding to the false assertions that:

1. Parks today aren't busy
2. Vision's park board builds nothing but trees and grass
3. Since they aren't fully utilized 12 months/year they aren't worth having

1. They're not "totally rammed" either - more like about two thirds full during a public event and one third full when there isn't. Or empty most of the year when it's cold, cloudy or rainy.

2. Our current park board is probably capable of more, but they're sure as hell not demonstrating it.



3. Everyone agrees that the current parks are worth having. Where we disagree is on planning for new ones along the seawall, which AFAIK is overkill and a waste of space when we've got so many (and under-capacity, too).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I have no problem with other potential uses for the seawall space. I was merely responding to the false assertions that:

1. Parks today aren't busy
2. Vision's park board builds nothing but trees and grass
3. Since they aren't fully utilized 12 months/year they aren't worth having

Thankfully Vision Vancouver lost control of the Parks Board in 2014 election when they were pretty much wiped off the board.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Vin

You sound like Trump asking for Obama's birth cert.

LMAO!

Migrant coconut, there's the post-rationalization someone gives for his line of questioning after the fact, and then there's knowing cornholio's history of getting, uh, "paranoid", around immigrants. This guy literally asked me to "be honest" about where my parents got their money!

Re: parks. I totally agree there is an unnecessary dichotomy between the built form and green space, and that the latter would benefit immensely from permanent program such as retail. I wouldn't say Vancouver has an abundance of parks though, just that they're not programmed enough to attract people. They should be made for activities beyond just walking the dog.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Thankfully Vision Vancouver lost control of the Parks Board in 2014 election when they were pretty much wiped off the board.

Oh yes, how has that been going?

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

International Village School

May 29 '16, my pics

June 17 '16, my pics

[rofina]

I love how quickly we can construct steel frame buildings.

We could densify the city in a matter of 5 - 7 years if this was a more prevalent form of construction throughout the city.

Instead we focus on towers that take years to build and plan.

Shame of it is, there is precedent for rapid building here, e.g.; Vancouver Specials.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by rofina

I love how quickly we can construct steel frame buildings.

We could densify the city in a matter of 5 - 7 years if this was a more prevalent form of construction throughout the city.

Instead we focus on towers that take years to build and plan.

Shame of it is, there is precedent for rapid building here, e.g.; Vancouver Specials.

But we need a comprehensive rapid transit network to match the densification - otherwise, everybody just drives to work and makes our congestion even worse.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But we need a comprehensive rapid transit network to match the densification - otherwise, everybody just drives to work and makes our congestion even worse.

In that sense, revenue formulas that include "transit fees" as a part of development applications make the most sense. Those areas will get the most transit spending applied.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL yep, that's the thing. There are tons of events going on during the summer in parks.

Not really. I wonder why you didn't bother to take photos of the parks closer to you, like David Lam or Geroge Wainborn (why zoom into certain far-flung parks like the Granville Island kiddy play area?), which are virtually empty most of the time, and that there were no "special events" taking place. So to say that the parks around Falsecreek being over used is an overstatement.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

well those both had events going on so not exactly "every day" uses.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except that in those photos of yours, said events already have plenty of room. Again, by all means, expand the existing Creekside Park a little to connect with David Lam, and that'll be enough - build any future parks inland. The seawall's got enough green space that can be used a lot for a few sunny days in summer, and not enough retail/dining/entertainment space that can be used a lot all year.

Agree and agree!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

So to say that the parks around Falsecreek being over used is an overstatement.

I didn't say that. I said they were well-used, and if we are expanding the number of people living in the area, we should expand park space.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Good call. Let's get rid of anything outdoors. Parks, beaches, ski hills, hiking trails, none of those can be used 12 months so they should all be re-purposed to build condos and malls.

By the way, we have plenty of parks by the water along Falsecreek but not a SINGLE mall, just saying (since you are obsessed with mentioning it).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I didn't say that. I said they were well-used, and if we are expanding the number of people living in the area, we should expand park space.

A) Again, depends on your definition of "well-used." The parks are nearly-full with a public event going on, half-full without, and empty for most of the year when it's cloudy or wet. Plenty of room for the next 50 years.

B) By all means, create more parks. Inland. Extending Creekside to Andy Livingston makes sense, but the seawall in general has enough green and residential space, and not enough commercial space.

Originally Posted by Vin

By the way, we have plenty of parks by the water along Falsecreek but not a SINGLE mall, just saying (since you are obsessed with mentioning it).

It's sarcasm. Everybody always brings it up because you always bring it up.