Cambie Corridor Updates

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Urban in what way?

Think gastown

Or leave Vancouver and look at other urban centers. Where buildings are built up against the property line and up against each other. With a street grid. With commercial uses on the lower floors. Etc. I don't understand why there can't be at least one new development that is designed with that type of built form

[Migrant_Coconut]

You tend to see "rows" in downtown/historic areas with a lot of density and not much lot space, whereas suburban areas are more spread out. As for lack of commercial spaces, that's a good point - not too many cafes or stores popping up along Cambie.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Think gastown

Or leave Vancouver and look at other urban centers. Where buildings are built up against the property line and up against each other. With a street grid. With commercial uses on the lower floors. Etc. I don't understand why there can't be at least one new development that is designed with that type of built form

The Oakridge Town Centre is the "urban centre" of this area. According to City planning and structuring of infrastructure, resources, etc. According to many modern code and design standards, Gastown would not work. Langara and Dogwood are not local commercial centres, they are not a downtown.

I recognize your intent and idea, but, as a developer, building another Gastown doesn't hold a lot of ...buck. I would love more "Gastown's".

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The Oakridge Town Centre is the "urban centre" of this area. According to City planning and structuring of infrastructure, resources, etc. According to many modern code and design standards, Gastown would not work. Langara and Dogwood are not local commercial centres, they are not a downtown.

I recognize your intent and idea, but, as a developer, building another Gastown doesn't hold a lot of ...buck. I would love more "Gastown's".

I disagree. I can't see why a developer wouldn't make money by building tighter and denser buildings. As I've mentioned before, the duke is a great example. But the city wants open spaces and set backs and greenery. That's why it doesn't happen

Yeah oakridge is the town center and look at the proposal. Looks like this but with retail.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I disagree. I can't see why a developer wouldn't make money by building tighter and denser buildings. As I've mentioned before, the duke is a great example. But the city wants open spaces and set backs and greenery. That's why it doesn't happen

Yeah oakridge is the town center and look at the proposal. Looks like this but with retail.

Yeah, funny, isn't it, how the Amazing Brentwood only has a parkette at the back of the site.
City of Lougheed has more green space, but it's farther into the suburbs.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I disagree. I can't see why a developer wouldn't make money by building tighter and denser buildings. As I've mentioned before, the duke is a great example. But the city wants open spaces and set backs and greenery. That's why it doesn't happen

Yeah oakridge is the town center and look at the proposal. Looks like this but with retail.

Exactly. City. Policy. Regulations. Requirements.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Exactly. City. Policy. Regulations. Requirements.

Not all, i.e. There is no requirement or regulation stating that the streets can't be in a standard street grid. Regardless, nothing is fixed in stone. It's all subjective

So when I say. I wish there could be a development that was more urban. I'm meaning I wish the city would be open minded to allow that

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Not all, i.e. There is no requirement or regulation stating that the streets can't be in a standard street grid. Regardless, nothing is fixed in stone. It's all subjective

So when I say. I wish there could be a development that was more urban. I'm meaning I wish the city would be open minded to allow that

They already tried that with Marine Gateway, and it didn't really work.

Besides, what's the point? It's a high-density bedroom community in the middle of the 'burbs and ten blocks away from the nearest town centre, let it be that way. Not every large-scale project needs to look like Oakridge or NEFC or Brentwood.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

They already tried that with Marine Gateway, and it didn't really work.

Besides, what's the point? It's a high-density bedroom community in the middle of the 'burbs and ten blocks away from the nearest town centre, let it be that way. Not every large-scale project needs to look like Oakridge or NEFC or Brentwood.

No one's talking about Oakridge or Brentwood malls. Think St Claire or Bloor/ Yonge in Toronto. These are not downtown downtown, but they are extensions of an urban centre. 57th Ave should be built this way.

St Claire/Yonge (not downtown T.O.):
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6880519,-...598YROxWwj71JlL-Vs4ow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

No one's talking about Oakridge or Brentwood malls. Think St Claire or Bloor/ Yonge in Toronto. These are not downtown downtown, but they are extensions of an urban centre. 57th Ave should be built this way.

St Claire/Yonge (not downtown T.O.):
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6880519,-...598YROxWwj71JlL-Vs4ow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

You're talking about a town centre, or "hub" - which is what they're building out Oakridge and Brentwood as, in tandem with the Regional Centre plan. 57th isn't going to be one of those because it's too close to the centres at 41st and Marine Drive (with the latter, as previously mentioned, seriously needing more foot traffic as it is); better to specialize it as a bedroom community and let residents gravitate north and south (as planned right now), rather than having three hubs close together and all poaching off one another.

Which brings the discussion back to osirisboy wanting 57th to look more urban - not going to happen, because buildings are naturally super-compact at the core and tend to scatter as they get further out. Think of it as Oakridge's Coal Harbour.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

They already tried that with Marine Gateway, and it didn't really work.

Besides, what's the point? It's a high-density bedroom community in the middle of the 'burbs and ten blocks away from the nearest town centre, let it be that way. Not every large-scale project needs to look like Oakridge or NEFC or Brentwood.

No you missed my point entirely

I'm not talking about things that look like oakridge or Brentwood. I'm not talking about tall towers. I'm talking about developments where buildings are simply built right up against each other, up to the property lines. That's it. There have been no large scale developments like that

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You're talking about a town centre, or "hub" - which is what they're building out Oakridge and Brentwood as, in tandem with the Regional Centre plan. 57th isn't going to be one of those because it's too close to the centres at 41st and Marine Drive (with the latter, as previously mentioned, seriously needing more foot traffic as it is); better to specialize it as a bedroom community and let residents gravitate north and south (as planned right now), rather than having three hubs close together and all poaching off one another.

Which brings the discussion back to osirisboy wanting 57th to look more urban - not going to happen, because buildings are naturally super-compact at the core and tend to scatter as they get further out. Think of it as Oakridge's Coal Harbour.

what does foot traffic have to do with anything? It doesn't have to have any retail or commercial. It doesn't need to be a town centre. It doesn't need tall towers. And oakridge and coal harbour are not at all what im talking about.

[goldenboi]

It sounds like osirisboy is talking about the form rather than the intensity of the development (correct me if I am wrong). It doesn't matter whether it is downtown, a town centre, or a suburban development. I think olympic village is a good example. It is a good scale, high density, and the city even made a profit on it. You could use that model almost anywhere in Vancouver, whether it be right next to downtown, or down by 57th. It has been proven to work over thousands of years of city-building. Compact, human scale, mixed-use, street grid (or at least streets that continue through to the next block), and high density. There is no reason why this wouldn't be profitable anymore, other than city regulations.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

No you missed my point entirely

I'm not talking about things that look like oakridge or Brentwood. I'm not talking about tall towers. I'm talking about developments where buildings are simply built right up against each other, up to the property lines. That's it. There have been no large scale developments like that

Originally Posted by osirisboy

what does foot traffic have to do with anything? It doesn't have to have any retail or commercial. It doesn't need to be a town centre. It doesn't need tall towers. And oakridge and coal harbour are not at all what im talking about.

And you're missing my point. The compact, back-to-back development that you're looking for occurs in urban areas zoned for mixed-use, such as the downtown core or town centres - that's exactly what we're seeing with the Oakridge redevelopment. As you get further away from the centres and further into the suburbs or the bedroom residential areas, whether it's intentional or not, the buildings are spaced further and further apart.

Originally Posted by goldenboi

It sounds like osirisboy is talking about the form rather than the intensity of the development (correct me if I am wrong). It doesn't matter whether it is downtown, a town centre, or a suburban development. I think olympic village is a good example. It is a good scale, high density, and the city even made a profit on it. You could use that model almost anywhere in Vancouver, whether it be right next to downtown, or down by 57th. It has been proven to work over thousands of years of city-building. Compact, human scale, mixed-use, street grid (or at least streets that continue through to the next block), and high density. There is no reason why this wouldn't be profitable anymore, other than city regulations.

I get that entirely. Thing is, Olympic Village kind of reinforces my point - it's almost right next to downtown Vancouver, whereas 57th is on the edge of Marpole and in the middle of SFH-istan. Langara Gardens and Pearson-Dogwood look quiet and suburban because they're in the suburbs. Look to Oakridge up the street for that kind of urban village.

[osirisboy]

It's almost like you aren't reading what I'm saying

I'm not saying it has to be mixed use.

Also. Look at yaletown and west and coal harbour. They are right downtown but are all spaced apart, they are the opposite of back to back development that I'm talking about. So what's your point?

The back to back development that I'm talking about is not at all what oakridge is proposed as. To me it's the same thing as this development but with retail thrown in. Just off the top of my head, imagine the residential streets in the upper west side of NYC, that's what I'm talking about.

And who here would classify cambie and 57th as the suburbs?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

It's almost like you aren't reading what I'm saying

I'm not saying it has to be mixed use.

Also. Look at yaletown and west and and coal harbour. They are right downtown but are all spaced apart, they are the opposite of back to back development. So what's your point? The back to back development that I'm not talking about is not at all what oakridge is.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting Coal Harbour and Yaletown meet you criteria for acceptable urbanity or not, but they both have buildings setback from the street, and usually raised a bit as well - so not really the zero lot line you were suggesting you prefer.

Generally, that's the 'Vancouver Model' and it's been cited as an improvement in liveability on building housing right up to the sidewalk. Books have been written about it. 'Tighter' and 'denser' were tried in South East False Creek - starting with the Olympic Village - and there are different opinions about whether it's a better model that tower-and-podium, at roughly the same density. Developers and buyers seem to prefer the tower model, which you've seen replicated in many of the new centres around transit across the region.

Having lived in a terraced house right on the street, another about 8 feet back from the street and a little raised above it, and a house with a twenty foot deep front yard (and none of the roads were busy arterials), I can tell you that the larger setback is vastly superior for privacy and noise.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm not sure if you're suggesting Coal Harbour and Yaletown meet you criteria for acceptable urbanity or not, but they both have buildings setback from the street, and usually raised a bit as well - so not really the zero lot line you were suggesting you prefer.


Generally, that's the 'Vancouver Model' and it's been cited as an improvement in liveability on building housing right up to the sidewalk. Books have been written about it. 'Tighter' and 'denser' were tried in South East False Creek - starting with the Olympic Village - and there are different opinions about whether it's a better model that tower-and-podium, at roughly the same density. Developers and buyers seem to prefer the tower model, which you've seen replicated in many of the new centres around transit across the region.

Having lived in a terraced house right on the street, another about 8 feet back from the street and a little raised above it, and a house with a twenty foot deep front yard (and none of the roads were busy arterials), I can tell you that the larger setback is vastly superior for privacy and noise.

I was suggesting that they did not meet my criteria

Right and yet gastown and the warehouse portion of yaletown are hugely popular to live in. Or areas like old Montreal, so I think people are fine with it. However, my point wasn't what's better or not or that I prefer one form over another but rather me just wanting to see something different. All these master planned developments feel and look all the same, from curving streets and cul de sacs and huge set backs with greenery everywhere. A lot of them look great. I have no problem with them in of themselves,

Yeah youre right Olympic village did a good job of bringing things closer to the street. Although still a lot of the ubiquitous ground floor patios and grass areas

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

It's almost like you aren't reading what I'm saying

I'm not saying it has to be mixed use.

Also. Look at yaletown and west and coal harbour. They are right downtown but are all spaced apart, they are the opposite of back to back development that I'm talking about. So what's your point?

The back to back development that I'm talking about is not at all what oakridge is proposed as. To me it's the same thing as this development but with retail thrown in. Just off the top of my head, imagine the residential streets in the upper west side of NYC, that's what I'm talking about.

Hence “suburbs and bedroom residential.” Buildings in Vancouver that are 100% apartments and condos tend to be inherently spaced further apart than their mixed-use counterparts. Less noise and more privacy, or something like that.

Oakridge proper is being built pretty compact... fair point about all the development around it, though.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

And who here would classify cambie and 57th as the suburbs?

If this looks urban to you, I don’t think you’re in the majority. One could easily argue that Metro Van past 12th or Arbutus is mostly suburbs (YMMV on Kerrisdale); something like Olympic Village or the Upper West Side would stick out, and not in a good way.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Right and yet gastown and the warehouse portion of yaletown are hugely popular to live in. Or areas like old Montreal, so I think people are fine with it. However, my point wasn't what's better or not or that I prefer one form over another but rather me just wanting to see something different. All these master planned developments feel and look all the same, from curving streets and cul de sacs and huge set backs with greenery everywhere. A lot of them look great. I have no problem with them in of themselves,

Yeah youre right Olympic village did a good job of bringing things closer to the street. Although still a lot of the ubiquitous ground floor patios and grass areas

Let me try again: the thing about downtowns and historic districts is that there’s a lot of bustle and not much space. Once again, the further away from the city core, the more space and less bustle you get – suburbanites tend to prefer Peace and Tranquility (TM), which is what the curved roads and setbacks in all the master plans seem to be working towards.

It’s what you’re used to, I guess. Pretty sure most Montreal or NYC architects would love a big, empty lot to “get creative” on.

[osirisboy]

Just picture the duke on kingsway and replicate that form on a street grid. Or really anything that doesn't have all these gardens and green spaces in between the sidewalk and building.

One could argue the towers they are proposing will stick out here in a sea of sfh and not in a good way as well.

I guess I don't see this area as a suburb like you do. lol I wouldn't call the people living here suburbanites

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Just picture the duke on kingsway and replicate that form on a street grid. Or really anything that doesn't have all these gardens and green spaces in between the sidewalk and building

One could argue the towers they are proposing stick out and not in a good way as well.

Mount Pleasant is pretty urban (or at least semi-urban) and compact, as is Fairview. Anything south of it, not so much.

To locals, they probably do; spreading them out seems to offset that at least a little. Compare and contrast to Marine Gateway, a Brentwood-scale project in the middle of the boonies, sticking out in a way that makes a sore thumb incognito by comparison.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I guess I don't see this area as suburban like you do. lol I wouldn't call the people living here suburbanites

Heh, tell that to Yaletown. Apparently, even Kitsilano counts as the suburbs... pricks.

To use another example, 10th and Blanca has a dozen mid-rise apartments all in a row, but the rest is SFH and the Endowment Lands. On a scale of 1 (West Van) to 10 (downtown), I'd give it a 4 at best.