Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Updates Discussion

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Here's the plan I'm looking at, in case you've got a different one:



There's two vacant lots left. The one between Ontario and Quebec is currently under construction as a series of condos and yet another large grass field. The other one between Hinge Park and Cambie Bridge is, like I said, slated for a large sports field plus some townhouses. Not much room left for restaurants, offices or light industry in Olympic Village - if you meant SE False Creek in general, that remains to be seen.

That proposed green field by Cambie bridge should be developed into a large commercial/mixed use complex like Canary Wharf, especially since it's just right next to OV Station. We are running out of waterfront land for interesting developments, and what we are getting are more townhouses and green fields. City should change that lousy OCP of theirs. Future schools and fields can go to the industrial area south of 2nd Ave.

[wrenegade]

If anything should be commercial/mixed-use it should be the Molson Brewery lands. Olympic Village should stay as it is.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

If anything should be commercial/mixed-use it should be the Molson Brewery lands. Olympic Village should stay as it is.

I don't think it's too much to ask that the buildings right beside the Canada Line station be built as office/commercial.

[wrenegade]

By that definition then there should be office buildings at 49th & Cambie as well?

The Olympic Village was planned as a mostly residential neighbourhood, and I think it should stay that way. It's not as if the region is lacking when it comes to office/commercial space either. I will say though, that I think the parking lot next to the OV station itself should be a 7-8 storey office/commercial building, but building office space a 10 min walk from the station in a location completely surrounding by residential or recreational uses doesn't make much sense to me.

It would also be a little deceitful from the city's perspective to plan and allow the development of the community as it has and have thousands of people buy into the vision, only to then turn around and change the fabric of the community (not even 10 years later). The historically industrial mount pleasant neighbourhood between 2nd and Broadway just as it's zoning relaxed to allow for different types of office use and we are seeing a mini-boom there.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

By that definition then there should be office buildings at 49th & Cambie as well?

The Olympic Village was planned as a mostly residential neighbourhood, and I think it should stay that way. It's not as if the region is lacking when it comes to office/commercial space either. I will say though, that I think the parking lot next to the OV station itself should be a 7-8 storey office/commercial building, but building office space a 10 min walk from the station in a location completely surrounding by residential or recreational uses doesn't make much sense to me.

It would also be a little deceitful from the city's perspective to plan and allow the development of the community as it has and have thousands of people buy into the vision, only to then turn around and change the fabric of the community (not even 10 years later). The historically industrial mount pleasant neighbourhood between 2nd and Broadway just as it's zoning relaxed to allow for different types of office use and we are seeing a mini-boom there.

We've had this discussion. Many times. Check the NE False Creek thread for more.

tl;dr: Office high-rises are indeed a bit of a stretch, BUT the Vancouver seawall does already have an abundance of parks... and a lack of restaurants, stores, clubs, theatres, museums, or anything besides parks. As it is, there's not much to do along False Creek besides biking or walking the dog.

A promenade of low/mid-rises with restaurants, bars, plazas, retail and entertainment instead of the sports field would liven up Olympic Village while keeping the neighbourhood's character - just look at the Creekside Tap & Barrel.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A promenade of low/mid-rises with restaurants, bars, plazas, retail and entertainment instead of the sports field would liven up Olympic Village while keeping the neighbourhood's character - just look at the Creekside Tap & Barrel.

Darling Harbour is Sydney's False Creek and its recent King Street Wharf project it is a great example of how low-/mid-rise F&B-anchored mixed-use development can successfully coexist with an active waterfront promenade. I was there in May last year, which is their late autumn, and it was a great place to walk around and the restaurants were still hopping pretty late into the evening when my colleagues and I went out to eat.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

If anything should be commercial/mixed-use it should be the Molson Brewery lands. Olympic Village should stay as it is.

Molson Brewery area has no train station to bring in and out lots of people. OV station, on the other hand, is underutilized.

Originally Posted by wrenegade

By that definition then there should be office buildings at 49th & Cambie as well?

49th and Cambie is too far away from downtown. OV station area is essentially an immediate extension of downtown. It is reasonable to expect an organic growth of downtown here.

Originally Posted by wrenegade

building office space a 10 min walk from the station in a location completely surrounding by residential or recreational uses doesn't make much sense to me.

Are you saying that Coal Harbour also doesn't make sense since it is right next to the CBD? High density job and retail centres should be available in dense downtown residential neighbourhoods because that's why it is the city centre of a region. I don't get why people fret about this. There are plenty of purely "residential neighbourhoods", and even new ones coming up at East Fraser Lands & Little Mountain, and such neighbourhoods are available pretty much everywhere else in Vancouver outside downtown. Making just one area (OV) more vibrant with mixed-use developments certainly makes a whole lot of sense and will not suddenly make quiet residential neighbourhoods disappear in this city.

Originally Posted by wrenegade

It would also be a little deceitful from the city's perspective to plan and allow the development of the community as it has and have thousands of people buy into the vision, only to then turn around and change the fabric of the community (not even 10 years later). The historically industrial mount pleasant neighbourhood between 2nd and Broadway just as it's zoning relaxed to allow for different types of office use and we are seeing a mini-boom there.

Thousands of people, including myself, never agreed to this OCP from Vision, especially the part with so many grass field parks on the waterfront and the removal of the viaducts. A municipal government should be flexible to changes and needs in a city.


Was just in London and experienced what a real world-class city has to offer. There are many great waterfront districts with exciting places eat, drink, play and simply to hang out at, with hotels and office buildings built right next to high density condos that are easily accessible by transit. Below office buildings are malls all linked to the tube/LRT stations. And London's not done yet: they are still trying to improve on their already excellent train stations by adding more mall arcades to link up with buildings. These places include Canary Wharf, the London Tower bridge/City Hall district, etc. The city succeeds by continuing to re-invent itself and outdoing others despite having a world-renowned historical city centre core. The no-can-do attitude is never present there.

Canary Wharf:

http://brucegillinghampollard.com/case-studies/canary-wharf-london

http://wallpaperfolder.com/london-99853-canary-images-wharf-hdw4673264

https://www.google.ca/search?q=canary+wh...biw=1626&bih=937#imgrc=LtBW1ZBExIEtwM%3A

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We've had this discussion. Many times. Check the NE False Creek thread for more.

tl;dr: Office high-rises are indeed a bit of a stretch, BUT the Vancouver seawall does already have an abundance of parks... and a lack of restaurants, stores, clubs, theatres, museums, or anything besides parks. As it is, there's not much to do along False Creek besides biking or walking the dog.

A promenade of low/mid-rises with restaurants, bars, plazas, retail and entertainment instead of the sports field would liven up Olympic Village while keeping the neighbourhood's character - just look at the Creekside Tap & Barrel.

Yup, all that are way better than just a vacant field or school that never gets built. Without the funding, it remains a car parking yard for decades. Such is Vision's legacy.

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yup, all that are way better than just a vacant field or school that never gets built. Without the funding, it remains a car parking yard for decades. Such is Vision's legacy.

The city wouldn't want to contribute to increased supply that may in some way reduce real estate price escalation, so they must hold this "last waterfront parcel" as long as possible.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Vin

Thousands of people, including myself, never agreed to this OCP from Vision, especially the part with so many grass field parks on the waterfront and the removal of the viaducts. A municipal government should be flexible to changes and needs in a city.

The Southeast False Creek Council Policy Statement, which set out use, form, and general density goals for the public and private sector development of the precinct, was approved in 1999 under NPA Mayor Phillip Owen and a Council composed of 8 NPA and 2 COPE representatives.

The SEFC Public Realm Plan began the process of implementing the SEFC Council Policy Statement and was approved in 2006 under NPA Mayor Sam Sullivan and a Council composed of 5 NPA, 4 Vision, and 1 COPE representatives.

The Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan was approved in 2007 under NPA Mayor Sullivan and his NPA-led Council composed of 5 NPA, 4 Vision, and 1 COPE representatives.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The Southeast False Creek Council Policy Statement, which set out use, form, and general density goals for the public and private sector development of the precinct, was approved in 1999 under NPA Mayor Phillip Owen and a Council composed of 8 NPA and 2 COPE representatives.

The SEFC Public Realm Plan began the process of implementing the SEFC Council Policy Statement and was approved in 2006 under NPA Mayor Sam Sullivan and a Council composed of 5 NPA, 4 Vision, and 1 COPE representatives.

The Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan was approved in 2007 under NPA Mayor Sullivan and his NPA-led Council composed of 5 NPA, 4 Vision, and 1 COPE representatives.

It doesn't matter who approved it. And who's to say a different government would have altered the OCP with further consultation with different parties? Vision is the government of today and nothing is happening there, except waiting in vain for funding to come build their grass field. So as far as I'm concerned, they are responsible for the deplorable condition that area is in now.


Look at why Melbourne has overtaken Vancouver as the #1 place to live, despite not having the "northshore mountains". It's all in the mentality of the people who live there, and their rather worldly and open-minded politicians: crucial elements that allow this city to produce a record number of super tall and beautifully-sculpted skyscrapers for this city, among other nice things that Vancouverites only know how to be fearful of.

See the upper far side of the Yarra River in the depiction/rendering below? That area started industrial, just like Olympic Village. Look at how Melbournites allow high rises to come up in that area, and now is one of the newest vibrant neighbourhoods of the CBD, an extension that brings in lots of people, similar with what Canary Wharf is doing in London. On the table below, there are 40 proposed, approved and under construction towers 60 storeys or above that will contribute greatly to the future skyline of Melbourne. For Vancouver, we have a pathetic 2: Trump and Shangri-la. Developers are all deserting downtown Vancouver to build in neighbouring cities.


From Skyscrapercity:

Originally Posted by erbse

Melbourne is going crazy! Insane skyscraper boom for the city.
Let's have a look at the "Boom Map" now:


From: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=132412715#post132412715


Awesome thread anyway: Melbourne Boom Rundown

Originally Posted by PaPa Riddlz

September Update

[WhipperSnapper]

yes, supertalls is why Melbourne supplanted Vancouver on a highly subjective list. Australia may be a little more avant garde with their tower designs but the few gems are completely overshadowed by crass, trending concepts. I wouldn't wish this on any Canadian city. Good form, human scaled never goes out of style.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Vin

It doesn't matter who approved it.

It mattered enough for you to say "this OCP from Vision", and that isn't correct. Vision didn't oversee the creation of the SEFC ODP, the NPA did. Opinion on SEFC's progress and future plans are one thing, but facts on its gestation are another.

For what it's worth, I support towers of significantly greater height being proposed and built in Vancouver, particularly in the CBD core and shoulder areas.

[jlousa]

I think the NPA did a splendid job voting to support the ODP of SEFC. Remember when city staff were the ones that developed plans and council voted on them, let the pros do what they do and let council vote on those plans, not dictate them.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I think the NPA did a splendid job voting to support the ODP of SEFC. Remember when city staff were the ones that developed plans and council voted on them, let the pros do what they do and let council vote on those plans, not dictate them.

Do you also have that view with today's Vision council and pro staff?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I think the NPA did a splendid job voting to support the ODP of SEFC. Remember when city staff were the ones that developed plans and council voted on them, let the pros do what they do and let council vote on those plans, not dictate them.

i know, those were crazy times. people who actually had education and experience in the field required for making actual planned out ideas?!?! man crazy days, it is much better to have a bunch of people who won a popularity contest come up with the plan!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

yes, supertalls is why Melbourne supplanted Vancouver on a highly subjective list. Australia may be a little more avant garde with their tower designs but the few gems are completely overshadowed by crass, trending concepts. I wouldn't wish this on any Canadian city. Good form, human scaled never goes out of style.

From my previous posting:
"Look at why Melbourne has overtaken Vancouver as the #1 place to live, despite not having the "northshore mountains". It's all in the mentality of the people who live there, and their rather worldly and open-minded politicians: crucial elements that allow this city to produce a record number of super tall and beautifully-sculpted skyscrapers for this city, among other nice things that Vancouverites only know how to be fearful of."


And by the way, avant garde design isn't reserved only for Australia: it's happening in many cities across the world. We, including the City, need to break out of the mould on how we see our city evolve.

We have bad-form, human scaled buildings everywhere outside downtown, eg. Kingsway, or the "Vancouver Specials". Isn't it enough to just redevelop those areas instead of constantly trying to make downtown and fringe areas "human scaled" too?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

It mattered enough for you to say "this OCP from Vision", and that isn't correct. Vision didn't oversee the creation of the SEFC ODP, the NPA did. Opinion on SEFC's progress and future plans are one thing, but facts on its gestation are another.

For what it's worth, I support towers of significantly greater height being proposed and built in Vancouver, particularly in the CBD core and shoulder areas.

Ok I take that statement ("this OCP from Vision") back and digress. However, I still need to emphasize that all the past City Councils succumb to the same pressure groups with similar mentality in this city. Sad.

With that said, when NPA came up with the idea to redevelop the OV area, it was probably revolutionary by Vancouver standards at that time. Times have changed and we as a city is now very far behind what other great cities around the world have achieved or are striving for.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

With that said, when NPA came up with the idea to redevelop the OV area, it was probably revolutionary by Vancouver standards at that time. Times have changed and we as a city is now very far behind what other great cities around the world have achieved or are striving for.

The NPA is the party of conservatism and keeping things in the past. They long for the old days of Vancouver.

Vision is the progressive party.

It's possible other parties will form for the 2018 election, civic politics is weird, but don't get confused over which one supports more change (even if it isn't exactly what you want).

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I think the NPA did a splendid job voting to support the ODP of SEFC. Remember when city staff were the ones that developed plans and council voted on them, let the pros do what they do and let council vote on those plans, not dictate them.

Yeah but many of the pros see market housing as something to be tolerated only to the extent that they can extract cash from it, and that market housing only benefits developers (nevermind the people living in it).

When I was speaking with a (former) senior official involved with SEFC planning, and he went on an unprovoked rant about how the city "gave" way too much density to the Olympic Village developers, and how it's terrible that we ended up with more homes than what the central planners initially envisioned.