Northeast False Creek | Proposed - Page 39

Migrant_Coconut · #**761** Posted **Feb 17, 2017, 7:00 AM**

From what I gathered at the open house:

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Looks like Pacific will still have a big centre median, future streetcar ROW I assume.

Yup, there's space reserved for light rail - but next to Pacific (IIRC), not through it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Not much detail on the park, I guess we'll see when the design comes back.

Actually, the Parks Board doesn't really know what to do either. All they know is that they want a large open space for events like Cirque.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Georgia Plaza has the potential to be a really cool spot.

Amen to that. And they're planning another plaza right where the (future) Carrall Promenade meets the waterfront.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

It is also disappointing (but not surprising at all) to see this council double-down on its small-town, anti-urban, "naturalized" shoreline philosophy in the heart of the city, instead of continuing Vancouver's illustrious history of building a proper, classical seawall that has hitherto created an elegant and refined point of contact between sea and city, between shore and civilization.

The seawall will be concrete along the new waterfront, naturalized along the parks to the east and west of it. Everybody wins.

Migrant_Coconut · #**762** Posted **Feb 17, 2017, 7:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Good to see that the City recognizes the significance of the BC Place Northern Lights display and wants to preserve views towards it.

Funny story behind that. This forum is correct - the City HAS been trying to hide BC Place with new development. See, back when the stadium had the old roof that nobody liked, the plan was to cover it up with a bunch of tall buildings; now that everybody likes the new roof, they've been trying to halt that plan and make sure there's some of the stadium still visible.

No citations, unfortunately - this is an anecdote from one of the City reps.

mcminsen · #**763** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 7:37 AM**

Some views from ground level of the new Crosstown Elementary School.

Feb.18 '17, my pics

mcminsen · #**764** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 7:38 AM**

Feb.18 '17, my pics

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**765** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 9:06 AM**

Crosstown is such a bad name for a school. so boring, they should have named it after Sir John A. Macdonald since it is opening in Canada's 150th year and we don't have one named after him anyways.

trofirhen · #**766** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 3:43 PM**

Crosstown Elementary School looks like something out of the Netherlands, or Scandinavia.

Jebby · #**767** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Crosstown Elementary School looks like something out of the Netherlands, or Scandinavia.

Crosstown doesn't sound very Dutch or Swedish...

Aroundtheworld · #**768** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 4:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

Crosstown is such a bad name for a school. so boring, they should have named it after Sir John A. Macdonald since it is opening in Canada's 150th year and we don't have one named after him anyways.

That seems honourable on the face of it, but after learning about the horrible policies that oppressed aboriginal people he helped in the place, this idea is unpalatable to me. It would also be a slap in the face especially with all the truth and reconciliation efforts going on.

Jebby · #**769** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

That seems honourable on the face of it, but after learning about the horrible policies that oppressed aboriginal people he helped in the place, this idea is unpalatable to me. It would also be a slap in the face especially with all the truth and reconciliation efforts going on.

Vin · #**770** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Crosstown doesn't sound very Dutch or Swedish...

I think trofirhen meant the architecture.

I think the school reminds me of this design:
http://inhabitat.com/eye-popping-rainbow...geles/south-region-elementary-school-2-2

I like ours better.

Jebby · #**771** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vin

I think trofirhen meant the architecture.

You're right. For some reason I read it as "Crosstown sounds like...."

trofirhen · #**772** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

Crosstown doesn't sound very Dutch or Swedish...

Excuse me, but I said it looked Dutch or Scandinavian. The name is not linked with appearance in this case.

Migrant_Coconut · #**773** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 8:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

That seems honourable on the face of it, but after learning about the horrible policies that oppressed aboriginal people he helped in the place, this idea is unpalatable to me. It would also be a slap in the face especially with all the truth and reconciliation efforts going on.

He also brought the Confederation together and started the CPR. Like it or not, he's basically Canada's founding father.

Everybody's got dirt - that doesn't change all the other important stuff they did, and if it does, we might as well stop teaching Social Studies. Same reason you don't see the States ignoring Washington or Jefferson because they were slave owners - they've talked about the good, talked about the bad, and decided that one outweighs the other.

That said, Macdonald's already got elementary and high schools in Hamilton, Waterloo, Halifax and Calgary. Lester B. Pearson should get a turn.

connect2source · #**774** Posted **Feb 21, 2017, 11:03 PM**

A welcome pop of colour and European design in contrast with the bleak Henderson towers in the background, clearly illustrates why beige, grey, putty and seafoam spandrel should be banned immediately.

trofirhen · #**775** Posted **Feb 22, 2017, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The potential for an urban plaza is being drastically diminished by this plan, which actually proposes eliminating a huge swath of existing land in favour of creating more sea (which is great if you are a barnacle) instead of using it to create the best possible and most dynamic public space for humans. What is left, if they actually implement this asinine idea, is a substantially reduced space jammed up against this council's planned Pacific Boulevard super road.1(fn)

.....................................................................................
(2.) It is also disappointing (but not surprising at all) to see this council double-down on its small-town, anti-urban, "naturalized" shoreline philosophy in the heart of the city, instead of continuing Vancouver's illustrious history of building a proper, classical seawall that has hitherto created an elegant and refined point of contact between sea and city, between shore and civilization.

1. I cannot for the life of me why it is a "super road." Sure, it's wide, but not
cleverly engineered with (such as) any express underpasses for through traffic, nor does it seem very big. I just don't, or can't see, what is so "super" about it.

2 ................. Absolutely, and it doesn't have to be Istanbul or Genoa.
Baltimore, San Francisco; just two examples of cities with great, architecture (be it older and more historic), and a real connectivity between the city shoreline, and the sea itself.

Feathered Friend · #**776** Posted **Mar 5, 2017, 8:10 AM**

Feathered Friend · #**777** Posted **Mar 5, 2017, 8:13 AM**

CityStudio Vancouver concept proposals for the park.

Smooth · #**778** Posted **Mar 5, 2017, 5:54 PM**

So the City propose to remove the viaducts because they say the structures are not built to today's seismic standards and are ugly. Then they propose to repurpose part of the viaduct for a park. Doesn't that contradict their original excuse for removing the structure?

whatnext · #**779** Posted **Mar 5, 2017, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

So the City propose to remove the viaducts because they say the structures are not built to today's seismic standards and are ugly. Then they propose to repurpose part of the viaduct for a park. Doesn't that contradict their original excuse for removing the structure?

It was never about the viaducts per se, it was about Vision Vancouver throwing a bone to their naive SJW base.

Aroundtheworld · #**780** Posted **Mar 5, 2017, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth

So the City propose to remove the viaducts because they say the structures are not built to today's seismic standards and are ugly. Then they propose to repurpose part of the viaduct for a park. Doesn't that contradict their original excuse for removing the structure?

I think the reason for keeping a small section of the viaducts is 1) Elevated Access to Rogers Arena and 2) Providing a connection for the new bike bridge now that the Dunsmuir Viaduct will be gone.

IMO I don't think the seismic standards was ever a key reason for removing the viaducts, and I say this is as a supporter for their removal. Anything can be retrofitted. That said, why spend millions of dollars retrofitting something that no longer needs to exist?