Cambie Corridor Updates

[osirisboy]

Haha yes that's true

[Changing City]

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,

I get that your preference is for building form like old Yaletown (the warehouse area) and Gastown. I don't think there are any residential buildings in either area that don't have a commercial use of some sort on the main floor, so that only really works where you have a higher level of activity overall (both areas have more office space than residential space, and also have retail and restaurants that serve a much wider area). There just isn't enough demand (need) for that much non-residential space. Even if Vin insists there is.

You've mentioned Duke on Kingsway as an example. That also has retail on the main floor. Personally, I think it's way too big and really badly designed density. It almost works in the context of Kingsway, which because it's on an odd angle and really wide can just about handle a tall building, but I think Stella across the street by the same architect, with a setback, is much more appropriate and probably more pleasant to live in. It isn't as dense - but I think Duke illustrates perfectly how a building that might work in Manhattan among similar sized old commercial buildings (or Downtown Los Angeles, or anywhere else with that scale of building) sticks out like a sore thumb when everything around is recently built and at a lower density.

I think the new 10 storey residential buildings in places like Victory Square, and the non-market ones in the Downtown Eastside are where you'll find the back-of-sidewalk then 10 storeys straight up, but I think there would be a justifiable backlash if you tried to create that elsewhere. Don't forget that for Kerrisdale, an eight storey building is a tower!

[osirisboy]

First off I specifically said it wasn't about preference. Lol. Just to have more variety

Well it's all subjective. I think the size of duke is fine. And what you find appropriate in size I'd probably find way to small

There is a building on beach and Hornby that does a good job with residential on the ground floor that butts right up against the sidewalk. It is doable

[Migrant_Coconut]

There's a big difference between Beach & Hornby and Cambie & 57th. Nobody's saying that block apartments don't work, only that they seem more appropriate for something like 41st or between 12th and King Ed.

[osirisboy]

Oh I totally disagree. They are no less appropriate than a bunch of point towers

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

First off I specifically said it wasn't about preference. Lol. Just to have more variety

Well it's all subjective. I think the size of duke is fine. And what you find appropriate in size I'd probably find way to small

There is a building on beach and Hornby that does a good job with residential on the ground floor that butts right up against the sidewalk. It is doable

Sorry, you didn't say preference, you'd like one of the big projects to have more of a streetwall character and less point towers, which are often on a non-grid pattern. I explained why I thought that probably wasn't going to be very popular, or likely beyond the SEFC example (and even that might not get repeated).

Funny thing about that Beach and Hornby building - although it's supposed to be apartments, it's actually a hotel. You can see the name in Streetview. (The other buildings at Beach and Hornby have stores, or are set back townhouses behind a hedge).

[osirisboy]

You're right, I said prefer. What I said earlier;

"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"

and my mistake. I was talking about beach and Howe, south west corner. (The townhouses fronting beach). They are close to the sidewalk, yet the ground floor is raised so there is privacy

[officedweller]

I think part of the problem is that the City of Vnacouver is only allowing large scale developments on what I call "opportunistic" redevelopment sites.

These sites are historically consolidated "large parcels" and do not have an existing street grid through them.

That site history lends itself to the insertion of parks and greenspace
- since it would otherwise require the creation (read: paving) of land - something that in anathema to the City of Vancouver.

Otherwise, the City of Vancouver's densification initiatives are not "district-wide" across a street-grid neighbourhood, but are along major arterials
- so that will not create a "downtown" street walled "community".

Downtown South has the at-grade character, but not the taller streetwalls.

A couple of exceptions may be the Carling-O'Keefe Lands (in terms of residential streetwall, not neighbourhood retail centre)
and Arbutus Village (which is also unique because it's replacing an existing shopping centre, so the community expects replacement retail space).

Again, neither of those are district-wide rezonings - they are both opportunistic historically-consolidated sites.

[whatnext]

I like the green space. It makes walking through the West End far more relaxing than walking through Downtown South.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.



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.

Why must everything be conforming to the "norm"? Mix it up a bit and make this city more quirky and fun. We need some avant garde thinking here.

Me for once like to see something unexpected when I drive around a new development corner in this City. A pleasant surprise rather than "oh yeah yet another Joyce Collingwood".

[GenWhy?]

I do acknowledge that many developers try to buck the trend and the norm but many projects are stomped out of their uniqueness by City policy and guidelines, Staff, zoning, etc.

We have (had) a unque warehouse project and by the time Staff got trough with it it turned into a regular "box" mixed-use development.

[GenWhy?]

I don't deal with parcels as large as Dogwood or Langara, but large rezonings do require an extensive sustainability and rainwater management and landscaping plan, this usually ties in with the inclusion of the level of green space and the overall layout/design of structures.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I don't deal with parcels as large as Dogwood or Langara, but large rezonings do require an extensive sustainability and rainwater management and landscaping plan, this usually ties in with the inclusion of the level of green space and the overall layout/design of structures.

Well, the parking structures of most buildings usually occupy almost the entire site anyway, so without grounds that water can easily infiltrate, the only other way for the developers to achieve green space is to be creative: like putting in green roofs, retention/detention tanks, rain-gardens along boulevards, etc. Therefore even if the building footprint is large, ample green space can be achieved (on the roof). With increasing rainfall, the City is getting more stringent on the amount of water to be detained on site. Without the height limit, developers can even dedicate a whole roof floor on water detention.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I do acknowledge that many developers try to buck the trend and the norm but many projects are stomped out of their uniqueness by City policy and guidelines, Staff, zoning, etc.

We have (had) a unque warehouse project and by the time Staff got trough with it it turned into a regular "box" mixed-use development.

Haha, yes this is common knowledge although many still want to deny that it is a fact. We need new people with open minds and having broader perspectives to plan/run the council and UDP.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Why must everything be conforming to the "norm"? Mix it up a bit and make this city more quirky and fun. We need some avant garde thinking here.

Me for once like to see something unexpected when I drive around a new development corner in this City. A pleasant surprise rather than "oh yeah yet another Joyce Collingwood".

Who said anything about conforming? 57th is going to be a high-density outskirt rather than an urban centre, and the spacing and form of the projects reflect that. Ask for creative architecture if you want something unexpected.

Ditto Joyce-Collingwood: the real problem is that it's the same bland concrete-and-balconies as the rest of the city. Compact-ness (of which we seem to be getting plenty of in the rezoning) isn't going to solve anything if the UDP steps and makes it lame.

Originally Posted by Vin

Therefore even if the building footprint is large, ample green space can be achieved (on the roof). With increasing rainfall, the City is getting more stringent on the amount of water to be detained on site. Without the height limit, developers can even dedicate a whole roof floor on water detention.

Somehow, I highly doubt that the viewcones apply to bushes and tall grass. Even if it does, the treehuggers in City Council should be easily persuaded to pass a bylaw raising the viewcones by one millimetre for such projects.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Who said anything about conforming? 57th is going to be a high-density outskirt rather than an urban centre, and the spacing and form of the projects reflect that. Ask for creative architecture if you want something unexpected.

Ditto Joyce-Collingwood: the real problem is that it's the same bland concrete-and-balconies as the rest of the city. Compact-ness (of which we seem to be getting plenty of in the rezoning) isn't going to solve anything if the UDP steps and makes it lame.



Somehow, I highly doubt that the viewcones apply to bushes and tall grass. Even if it does, the treehuggers in City Council should be easily persuaded to pass a bylaw raising the viewcones by one millimetre for such projects.

Huh
Why one millimeter?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Well, the parking structures of most buildings usually occupy almost the entire site anyway, so without grounds that water can easily infiltrate, the only other way for the developers to achieve green space is to be creative: like putting in green roofs, retention/detention tanks, rain-gardens along boulevards, etc. Therefore even if the building footprint is large, ample green space can be achieved (on the roof). With increasing rainfall, the City is getting more stringent on the amount of water to be detained on site. Without the height limit, developers can even dedicate a whole roof floor on water detention.




Haha, yes this is common knowledge although many still want to deny that it is a fact. We need new people with open minds and having broader perspectives to plan/run the council and UDP.

Double yes. Just attended the industry stakeholders high-level meeting on the City's new Rain City sustainable water management policy and it calls for even more stringent development and rezoning strategies for water conservation, filtration, and grew water use.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Huh
Why one millimeter?

Sorry, I'm referring to the actual view. Might come up to two metres if it's really tall vegetation, but it's barely going to be noticed all the way at QE Park/Creekside/etc unless you've got binoculars.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Double yes. Just attended the industry stakeholders high-level meeting on the City's new Rain City sustainable water management policy and it calls for even more stringent development and rezoning strategies for water conservation, filtration, and grew water use.

Stringent as in "even more architecturally restrictive?" I thought we were already at rock bottom...

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sorry, I'm referring to the actual view. Might come up to two metres if it's really tall vegetation, but it's barely going to be noticed all the way at QE Park/Creekside/etc unless you've got binoculars.

Stringent as in "even more architecturally restrictive?" I thought we were already at rock bottom...

Not as in architecturally restrictive. In this geographic area, and in this time of scientific understanding, and developments in materials and building practices, I think these strategies are good for our natural and urban environments.

While these sustainability measures do place issues or headaches and problem solving twist-ups, the end goal outweighs the initial aches. Rain water strategies and more permeable surfaces, for one, and yes passive house designs and building standards are restrictive and at times expensive, but the industry and reworked policy at all levels of government is slowly catching up and working out the kinds in these new strategies.

The more burdensome restrictions come from zoning by-laws, outdated community "plans", and subjective Staff / Panel comments of "does this fit" with the neighbourhood, issues.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Was at the open house today. It's just a concept, but Oakridge and Marpole look pretty compact to me.

[officedweller]

From City of Rain at SRC:

Taken March 9, 2018.

Originally Posted by City Of Rain, post: 1318787, member: 70034

DSC05828 by Hung Lam, on Flickr

DSC05838 by Hung Lam, on Flickr

DSC05859 by Hung Lam, on Flickr

DSC05861 by Hung Lam, on Flickr